G.R. No. A.C. No. 7121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1244). March 08, 2022
EMILIANI WILFREDO R. CRUZ AND CARLOS R. CRUZ, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. EVELYN BRUL-CRUZ AND ATTY. GRACELDA N. ANDRES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Complainants Emiliani Wilfredo R. Cruz and Carlos R. Cruz are among the compulsory heirs of the spouses Carlos Galman Cruz, Sr. and Emiliana de la Rosa Cruz, who owned seven parcels of land in Meycauayan, Bulacan (Meycauayan properties). Emiliana died in 1974. Carlos Sr. later married respondent Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz in 1978 and died in 1988, leaving the properties undivided.
In 2000, complainants discovered the Meycauayan properties were subjects of an expropriation case filed by the Republic. Atty. Evelyn, without informing complainants, actively participated in the case, misrepresenting herself and her children as the sole heirs. Respondent Atty. Gracelda N. Andres, a relative of Atty. Evelyn and a government lawyer, filed pleadings (Answer, Compliance, Manifestation) on behalf of the deceased spouses Cruz without complainants’ authority.
Atty. Evelyn, represented by Atty. Gracelda, also filed a petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate titles, alleging the properties were assigned to her per an agreement among heirs and that the titles were lost. Complainants denied any such assignment, asserted the properties remained unpartitioned, and claimed the titles were not lost but in the possession of another heir. They filed criminal complaints for perjury against Atty. Evelyn related to an affidavit of loss supporting the petition, which was later withdrawn.
Complainants also alleged Atty. Evelyn was found guilty by the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission of falsifying her SALNs, and that Atty. Gracelda unlawfully appeared against the government in the expropriation case while a public official.
In their defense, Atty. Evelyn claimed ownership of the properties as her inheritance share, supported by a 1991 letter from Carlos Cruz Jr., and asserted good faith regarding the affidavit of loss. Atty. Gracelda claimed she represented only Atty. Evelyn and her children, and the inclusion of the spouses Cruz’s names in pleadings was a secretary’s inadvertent error.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended dismissal, finding the matter a family dispute over inheritance, noting Atty. Evelyn’s possession was based on a family agreement, and finding no proof of bad faith or unauthorized representation. The IBP Board adopted this recommendation. Complainants sought reconsideration, and the case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which found Atty. Evelyn administratively liable.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz and Atty. Gracelda N. Andres should be held administratively liable for grave misconduct warranting disbarment or other disciplinary action.

RULING

The Court found respondents administratively liable.
As to Atty. Evelyn Brul-Cruz: She violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Her act of filing a petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate titles based on an affidavit of loss she knew to be false, as the titles were not lost but in another heir’s possession, constituted dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Her misrepresentation in the expropriation proceedings, claiming sole heir status to the exclusion of other compulsory heirs, further demonstrated deceitful conduct. Her prior administrative liability for SALN falsification was also noted as indicative of character. The Court suspended her from the practice of law for two (2) years, with a stern warning.
As to Atty. Gracelda N. Andres: She violated Canon 6 and Rule 6.03 of the CPR. As a Deputy Executive Director of the Legal Affairs Bureau in the House of Representatives, a government position, she was prohibited from engaging in private practice, especially against the government or its instrumentalities. Her representation of Atty. Evelyn in the expropriation case filed by the Republic of the Philippines (through the Toll Regulatory Board) constituted unlawful private practice. Her defense of inadvertent inclusion of the deceased spouses’ names in pleadings was insufficient to absolve her of this violation. The Court suspended her from the practice of law for one (1) year, with a stern warning.
Both suspensions are immediately executory. Respondents were ordered to inform the Court of the date of their receipt of the decision to determine the start of their suspension periods. They were warned that a repetition of similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.