G.R. No. A.C. No. 9000; October 5, 2011
TOMAS P. TAN, JR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Tomas P. Tan, Jr., a businessman, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba for gross unethical conduct. In August 2000, respondent borrowed ₱350,000.00 from complainant, promising to pay the principal plus 12% interest per annum after one year. As security, respondent offered a parcel of land registered in her father’s name, presenting a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by her parents. Respondent verbally assured complainant she was authorized to sell or encumber the entire property. After consulting a lawyer who validated the documents, complainant agreed to the loan. With that lawyer’s assistance, respondent executed an “open” Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in complainant’s favor, with the SPA attached. Complainant believed that if respondent defaulted, the deed could be registered. Respondent defaulted on the loan. When complainant attempted to register the sale, he discovered the SPA only authorized respondent to mortgage the property to banks, not to sell it. Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint before the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline despite being granted an extension, and she did not attend the mandatory conference hearings despite due notice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba is administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for grave misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors’ finding that respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent employed deceit and dishonest means by misrepresenting her authority to sell the property, thereby inducing complainant to grant the loan. Her actions constituted unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, eroding public confidence in the legal profession. Furthermore, respondent exhibited disrespect for the IBP’s authority by ignoring its orders to file an answer and attend mandatory conferences. While the IBP recommended a one-year suspension, the Supreme Court, exercising judicial discretion, reduced the penalty. The Court held that disbarment was too severe, as suspension was sufficient to protect the public and the profession. Respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS, effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.