G.R. No. A.C. No. 6950. October 06, 2021
REBECCA M. ALLAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ELPIDIO S. SALGADO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Rebecca M. Allan filed a disciplinary complaint against Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). From August to November 2004, respondent, representing himself as the owner of a condominium property (Millenium Park Place in Quezon City), convinced complainant to finance its demolition by promising P15,000,000.00 worth of recoverable scrap materials. On August 20, 2004, they executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in respondent’s law office, wherein complainant agreed to pay P7,000,000.00 for the assignment of all materials from the demolition. Complainant released an initial P1,000,000.00 to respondent and additional sums totaling P600,000.00 for alleged “under the table” dealings to expedite permits, plus P350,000.00 to respondent’s associates for materials. Complainant later discovered the property was not owned by respondent but by other individuals, and learned of a modus operandi involving an “Atty. Salgado.” When respondent’s group demanded another P300,000.00, complainant reported the matter to the police, leading to an entrapment operation on November 11, 2004, where respondent was apprehended. An Information for Estafa was filed against him. During the disciplinary proceedings, respondent repeatedly failed to comply with Court directives to file his comment, resulting in the imposition of fines and an order for his arrest and detention for non-compliance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is guilty of violating the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of violating the CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath. The Court found that respondent engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct by falsely representing himself as the owner of the property to defraud complainant of substantial sums, in violation of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the CPR. His actions constituted gross misconduct and a breach of the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Additionally, respondent’s willful disobedience of the Court’s lawful orders (by failing to file his comment despite multiple resolutions and sanctions) demonstrated a blatant disregard for the legal system, warranting disciplinary action under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. While disbarment would ordinarily be appropriate, the Court noted that respondent had already been disbarred in a separate case (A.C. No. 12452, Lapitan v. Salgado). Following precedents where double disbarment is not imposed, the Court ordered respondent to pay a fine of P100,000.00 in lieu of disbarment, plus P4,000.00 for his failure to comply with prior Court directives.