A.C. No. 5195; April 16, 2009
Nelia Pasumbal de Chavez-Blanco, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Eugenia J. Muñoz, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jaime B. Lumasag, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nelia de Chavez-Blanco, a U.S. resident, owned two adjacent lots in Quezon City. She authorized her husband’s cousin, respondent Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr., to sell them. In a March 20, 1990 letter, respondent informed complainant he had sold only one lot for ₱320,000.00, remitting the net proceeds after deductions. He claimed the second lot remained unsold due to squatters. In 1998, complainant’s husband discovered both lots had actually been sold to the spouses Martinez on March 11, 1990, for a total price of ₱560,000.00, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. New titles were issued to the buyers. Respondent, when confronted, admitted the sale and receipt of proceeds but failed to remit the balance, amounting to ₱240,000.00, despite repeated demands.
Respondent denied deceit, claiming he dealt solely with complainant’s husband, Mario Blanco. He asserted the lots were sold for ₱563,960.00 and that he remitted the proceeds from the first lot. He further alleged that Blanco consented to his using the proceeds from the second lot for a real estate venture, which later failed. Respondent also denied falsifying the Special Power of Attorney, claiming the signatures were genuine but notarized later.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jaime Lumasag, Jr. is guilty of deceit, dishonesty, and gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of deceit and violation of his lawyer’s oath, warranting suspension. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigation established that respondent executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for both lots on March 11, 1990, for ₱560,000.00. However, in his March 20, 1990 letter, he deliberately misrepresented that only one lot was sold for ₱320,000.00, concealing the sale of the second lot and the remaining ₱240,000.00. This act constitutes clear deception and dishonesty. As a lawyer, respondent is bound by the highest standards of integrity and fair dealing. His failure to account for and deliver the full proceeds to his principal, despite demands, constitutes gross misconduct.
The Court modified the IBP’s recommended penalty. While disbarment is reserved for the most severe cases, respondent’s advanced age and the need for a proportional disciplinary measure were considered. The primary purpose of suspension is to protect the public and the legal profession, not merely to punish. Consequently, respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. He is also ordered to deliver to complainant the amount of ₱240,000.00 plus legal interest of 6% per annum from March 1990. A warning is issued that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.