AC 724; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 724; January 31, 1969
Florentino B. Del Rosario, complainant, vs. Eugenio Millado, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Florentino B. del Rosario sought the disbarment of respondent attorney Eugenio Millado for alleged malpractice. The charges were: 1) that Millado violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code and Canon No. 10 of the Canons of Legal Ethics by acquiring an interest in land involved in litigation where he acted as counsel; 2) that this interest was adverse to his client’s; and 3) that he filed pleadings containing inconsistent and false allegations. Respondent countered that his interest in the land (Lots 4 and 5, Block E-102, Quezon City) was acquired before his intervention as counsel for La Paz Mesina Vda. de Pascual in two ejectment cases (one filed by complainant). He claimed this was through an agreement with Conrado Baluyot, an heir of the deceased claimant Eladio Tiburcio, in consideration for his legal services to defend the Tiburcios’ claim. He asserted his client was aware of his interest, there was no conflict, and his pleadings contained no false or inconsistent allegations. The Solicitor General, after investigation, submitted a report effectively exonerating the respondent.
ISSUE
Whether respondent attorney Eugenio Millado should be disbarred for allegedly acquiring an interest in the subject matter of litigation in which he participated as counsel, in violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code and Canon No. 10 of the Canons of Legal Ethics, and for filing inconsistent and false pleadings.
RULING
The complaint is dismissed. The Court found no merit in the charges. The evidence showed respondent’s interest in the lots was acquired before he acted as counsel for Mrs. Pascual in the ejectment cases. Furthermore, his interest was not necessarily inconsistent with his client’s, as his claim to the lots was contingent upon the Tiburcios (including his client as an heir) being adjudged the true owners. The allegation in the answer filed for Mrs. Pascual that she was the “owner and possessor” was not a substantial misrepresentation, as it pertained to bolstering her claim of prior possession in the ejectment suits, and did not conflict with his separate claim derived from the heirs. The absence of a true conflict is underscored by the fact that the complaint was filed not by the client, but by her opponent in the litigation.