G.R. No. A.C. No. 5325; October 19, 2011
Nemesio Floran and Caridad Floran, Complainants, vs. Atty. Roy Prule Ediza, Respondent.

FACTS

Spouses Nemesio and Caridad Floran owned an unregistered 3.5525-hectare parcel of land in Villanueva, Misamis Oriental, originally in the name of their relative Sartiga Epal. In 1996, they engaged Atty. Roy Prule Ediza to handle a judicial foreclosure of mortgage case involving ₱7,500, which he successfully had dismissed. In 1997, the spouses sold one hectare of their land to Phividec Industrial Authority for ₱272,750. Atty. Ediza notarized the Deed of Undertaking for this sale and later prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale between Epal and Nemesio Floran to facilitate the transfer. From the sale proceeds, Atty. Ediza received ₱125,463.38, which the spouses claimed was for titling the remaining portion of their land. Atty. Ediza failed to produce the title after two years and refused to return the money. During an IBP conference, it was revealed that Atty. Ediza possessed a deed showing Epal had sold one hectare of the land to him for ₱2,000, which he promised to destroy. The spouses alleged they were unaware of this document and suspected they were misled into signing it. Atty. Ediza claimed the one hectare was voluntarily given as payment for his legal services in the foreclosure case and that the ₱125,463.38 represented his share from the Phividec sale, not funds for titling.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Roy Prule Ediza violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct, and failure to account for and return client funds.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Ediza administratively liable. The Court adopted the IBP’s findings that his version of events was inconsistent and incredible. It was improbable that the destitute spouses would voluntarily donate one hectare of land valued at over ₱200,000 as payment for handling a ₱7,500 case. The deed of sale in his favor was simulated, as no consideration was paid, and it was inexplicably not notarized. The Court found that Atty. Ediza misled the spouses and Epal into signing documents that benefited him secretly. His failure to account for the ₱125,463.38 received from the clients’ sale proceeds, which was intended for titling, and his refusal to return it upon demand, constituted a violation of his fiduciary duty. He breached Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), Canon 15 (requiring candor, fairness, and loyalty to clients), and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 (requiring a lawyer to account for all money or property received from a client). Atty. Ediza was suspended from the practice of law for six months. He was ordered to return the two sets of documents he misled the spouses and Epal to sign and to pay the spouses ₱125,463.38 with legal interest from September 8, 2000, until fully paid.