G.R. No. A.C. No. 1934, February 24, 1984
Pedro Aggalut, Complainant, vs. Mariano T. Bagasao, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pedro Aggalut filed a disbarment case against lawyer Mariano T. Bagasao for gross misconduct. The dispute involved Lot No. 636, originally owned by Aggalut’s parents but sold to Jeremias Dulay in 1938. In 1972, Aggalut, assisted by Bagasao as his counsel, successfully petitioned the court for the issuance of a replacement owner’s duplicate of the title, which was allegedly destroyed. Later, while Aggalut worked as a caretaker for Bagasao, the lawyer, also serving as provincial assessor, had Aggalut and his wife sign a document in English, purportedly to facilitate the transfer of the title. This document was actually a “Deed of Confirmation of Sale with Absolute Quitclaim” in favor of Bagasao’s wife, Juanita Gonong, falsely stating that Aggalut’s parents had sold her the lot for P500. Bagasao then mortgaged the property.
In a perplexing turn, Gonong executed a “Deed of Reconveyance & Resale” in favor of Aggalut in December 1976, citing an adverse claim by Dulay as the reason for rescission, but this deed was not delivered to Aggalut. Dulay later sued the Bagasaos, leading to an amicable settlement where Dulay obtained title. Aggalut, assisted by Dulay’s counsel, subsequently withdrew his complaint against Bagasao.

ISSUE

Whether respondent lawyer Mariano T. Bagasao should be disciplined for his professional conduct in relation to the acquisition and disposition of Lot No. 636.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is severely reprimanded. The Supreme Court, while noting the complainant’s withdrawal and his lack of clean hands in pursuing a claim to property he knew was sold long ago, emphasized that a lawyer’s misconduct cannot be excused by the complainant’s own faults. The Court scrutinized Bagasao’s actions as both counsel and provincial assessor. He facilitated the dubious confirmation of sale, which transferred the property to his wife based on a fictitious prior sale, and then mortgaged it. The subsequent deed of reconveyance, executed but not delivered, appeared to be a manipulative ploy rather than a genuine act of restitution.
The legal logic centers on the fiduciary duty and ethical standards required of lawyers. Bagasao exploited his professional position and the complainant’s ignorance, using deceptive documentation to acquire an interest in the property for his spouse. Such maneuvers, aimed at personal gain through artifice, constitute unethical practice warranting disciplinary action. The Court held that these manipulations cannot be tolerated, as they undermine the integrity of the legal profession. Thus, despite the complaint’s withdrawal, the Court imposed a severe reprimand and ordered a copy of the decision attached to Bagasao’s record. Chairman Makasiar, dissenting, would have disbarred the respondent for falsification and taking undue advantage.