G.R. No. A.C. No. 415; August 29, 1969
DR. ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. APOLONIO BARRERA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Adriano B. Velasquez sought the disbarment of respondent Atty. Apolonio Barrera. The charges stemmed from a civil ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2174, Baguio Municipal Court) filed against complainant’s brother, Pedro Velasquez. Complainant engaged respondent’s services to appeal the case to the Court of First Instance, paying P120.00 as attorney’s fees and P100.00 for the appeal bond and expenses. Respondent failed to file the appeal bond, resulting in the case being lost by default. To stay the execution of the municipal court’s decision, respondent advised complainant to execute a chattel mortgage over his personal properties in favor of Alberto and Nicolas Ymson, assuring him it would not be registered. However, respondent later represented the Ymsons in suing complainant for estafa and in foreclosing the chattel mortgage. Respondent also filed a fourth-party complaint against complainant in his capacity as the Ymsons’ attorney and allegedly used force to take possession of the mortgaged properties. Respondent denied an attorney-client relationship with complainant, claiming he represented Pedro Velasquez and Jose P. Pangan, and that complainant only defrayed expenses. He admitted preparing the chattel mortgage but asserted it was valid and that he prosecuted complainant on behalf of his clients, the Ymsons. The investigation faced multiple postponements, largely at respondent’s request, and he eventually waived his right to appear and present evidence beyond his answer.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Apolonio Barrera violated his oath of office and committed acts constituting malpractice or misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court found respondent guilty of misconduct. While the Court disagreed with the Solicitor General’s finding that respondent deceived complainant into signing the chattel mortgage, it held that respondent’s actions fell short of the ethical standards required of the legal profession. Specifically, respondent’s intervention in the ejectment case at the municipal court level created an impression that he continued to represent the complainant’s brother on appeal. Despite this, he represented the opposing interests (the Ymsons) in subsequent proceedings against the complainant, including the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and a criminal case. This conduct, while not deemed unlawful or a direct violation of his oath, was not in accordance with the ethics of the legal profession. The Court approved the Solicitor General’s recommendation and admonished respondent to be more careful in his future relations with litigants, with a warning that similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.