G.R. No. A.C. No. 2797; October 4, 2002
Rosaura P. Cordon, complainant, vs. Jesus Balicanta, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosaura Cordon and her daughter Rosemarie inherited 21 parcels of land in Zamboanga City. Respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta, the lawyer who helped settle the estate of complainant’s late husband, enticed them to organize Rosaura Enterprises, Inc. to develop the properties. Complainant and her daughter, holding a 73% majority, assigned 19 parcels to the corporation. Respondent single-handedly ran the corporation as Chairman, President, General Manager, and Treasurer. He made complainant sign a voting trust agreement and a special power of attorney to sell/mortgage properties, later transferring titles to Tion Suy Ong without accounting for the proceeds. In 1981, using a spurious board resolution, respondent secured a P2,220,000 loan from Land Bank using 9 properties as collateral to construct the Baliwasan Commercial Center (BCC). The structure was made of poor materials, and respondent failed to pay the loan, leading to foreclosure in 1987. He sold the corporation’s right to redeem the foreclosed properties and a contiguous parcel to Hadji Mahmud Jammang via a fake board resolution, without accounting for the proceeds. Respondent also demolished complainant’s ancestral home, sold the lot to Tion Suy Ong using another spurious resolution, and detained complainant in a nipa shack. He collected BCC rentals, issuing receipts as complainant’s attorney, and failed to submit required corporate reports to the SEC. Complainant and her daughter terminated respondent’s services and demanded an accounting and return of properties, to no avail. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming documents were voluntarily executed, management was not single-handed, resolutions were not spurious, and that complainant was not detained.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jesus Balicanta should be disbarred for professional misconduct, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, respondent is disbarred. The Supreme Court adopted and affirmed the findings of the IBP Commissioner and Board of Governors, which found respondent guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violation of his lawyer’s oath. The Court held that respondent employed fraud and machination to gain control of complainant’s properties, misused a voting trust agreement beyond its legal period, fabricated board resolutions to secure loans and sell properties, failed to account for proceeds, neglected his duties as a corporate officer and lawyer, and engaged in conduct unbecoming of an attorney. His actions demonstrated a betrayal of trust, moral unfitness, and a pattern of deceit that warranted the supreme penalty of disbarment to protect the public and the legal profession. His disbarment is without prejudice to any criminal and civil liabilities.