AC 8777; (October, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 8777, October 9, 2019
ANA MARIE KARE, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CATALINA L. TUMALIUAN, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ana Marie Kare sold her house and lot to respondent Atty. Catalina L. Tumaliuan under a Contract to Sell dated April 29, 2009, for P7,100,000.00. As partial payment, Tumaliuan persuaded Kare to accept a Toyota Fortuner, which they agreed to value at P900,000.00, and they executed a Sale of Motor Vehicle on September 22, 2009. Tumaliuan provided Kare only a photocopy of the Certificate of Registration (CR) and failed to deliver the original despite demands. Kare later discovered at the Land Transportation Office that the vehicle was encumbered by a chattel mortgage in favor of Banco De Oro Universal Bank (BDO), executed by Tumaliuan in 2007. Kare alleged that Tumaliuan’s non-disclosure of the mortgage constituted deceit and fraud, violating her warranty of “full title and ownership” in the sale document. Tumaliuan denied fraud, claiming Kare requested the vehicle as payment and was aware of the mortgage, and argued that Kare was guilty of forum shopping for also filing a criminal estafa complaint. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended a one-year suspension from law practice.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Catalina L. Tumaliuan is administratively liable for dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent conduct in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The Court held that Tumaliuan committed deceit by failing to disclose the chattel mortgage on the vehicle used as payment, which prejudiced Kare. Her defense that Kare knew of the encumbrance was unsubstantiated, and her actions violated Rule 1.01, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest or deceitful conduct. The Court rejected Tumaliuan’s forum shopping argument, noting that administrative and criminal cases involve different causes of action and remedies. However, the Court declined to order restitution or rescission of the sale, as disciplinary proceedings focus solely on fitness to practice law. Accordingly, Tumaliuan was suspended from the practice of law for one year, with a warning for future misconduct.