A.C. No. 4650; August 14, 2003
ROSALINA BIASCAN, Complainant, vs. ATTY. MARCIAL F. LOPEZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rosalina Biascan, the court-appointed administratrix of the intestate estate of her father Florencio Biascan, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Marcial F. Lopez. The complaint centered on a 600-square meter lot in Sampaloc, Manila, part of the estate under Special Proceedings No. 98037. Respondent entered his appearance in these proceedings in August 1977 as counsel for an oppositor, Maria Manuel Biascan. While the intestate case was pending, Maria Manuel Biascan, without court knowledge or approval, executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication in 1983 falsely representing herself as the sole heir, leading to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in her name.
Subsequently, on July 24, 1990, respondent registered a Deed of Assignment dated December 22, 1977, whereby Maria Manuel Biascan had assigned 210 square meters of the lot to him as payment for legal services. A new title was issued in his name. Respondent later sold this portion to third parties. Complainant discovered these transfers only in 1993. Respondent, in his defense, claimed good faith, arguing the property was valid payment under a contingent fee contract and that there was no notice of lis pendens on the title. He also asserted laches and prayed for suspension of the administrative case pending resolution of related recovery suits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Marcial F. Lopez is administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ recommendation for a three-year suspension from the practice of law. The legal logic is clear: respondent violated Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring, by assignment, property or rights which are the object of litigation in which they take part by virtue of their profession. When respondent entered his appearance as counsel for an oppositor in the intestate proceedings in 1977, he was fully aware the Sampaloc lot was part of the estate under litigation, as evidenced by the Inventory and Appraisal Report filed by complainant. His subsequent acquisition of a portion of that very property through a Deed of Assignment, while the proceedings were ongoing, constituted a direct violation of this legal prohibition.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim of good faith based on a contingent fee contract and the absence of a lis pendens is immaterial, as the prohibition under Article 1491 is absolute and public policy-oriented, designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure a lawyer’s undivided loyalty to the cause of his client and the court. His actions demonstrated a clear disregard for the pending judicial proceedings and betrayed the trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship. The pendency of other civil recovery cases does not bar this administrative proceeding, which determines fitness to remain in the legal profession based on ethical standards, distinct from the proprietary issues in the civil suits. His conduct constituted gross misconduct warranting suspension.