G.R. No. A.C. No. 9115, September 17, 2014
REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rebecca Marie Uy Yupangco-Nakpil is the sole legal heir of the late Dra. Pacita Uy y Lim, as declared by the Regional Trial Court. Pacita was a stockholder in several corporations. Respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy, complainant’s alleged illegitimate half-cousin, was the President of Uy Realty Company, Inc. (URCI). A Trust Agreement executed in 1993 recognized complainant as the true and beneficial owner of a commercial property. Complainant alleged that respondent refused to comply with court orders and her requests for accounting and delivery of dividends and proceeds from Pacita’s stockholdings. She further alleged that respondent mortgaged the commercial property covered by the Trust Agreement without her consent. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for unprofessional and unethical conduct. Subsequently, complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint, stating the facts arose from a misunderstanding and misapprehension, and that respondent had fully explained the nature of her inheritance to her satisfaction, leading her to believe the complaint had no basis. However, her attorney-in-fact filed a manifestation to continue the investigation. The parties also entered into a compromise agreement in a related civil case concerning the property. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of serious misconduct for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Atty. Roberto L. Uy should be held administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, but to a lesser degree than found by the IBP. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court noted that the dispute was largely an internal affair that had been settled, as evidenced by the complainant’s withdrawal motion and a compromise agreement. The complainant’s withdrawal motion admitted a misapprehension of facts, undermining the IBP’s finding of “serious misconduct.” However, the Court held that respondent committed misconduct by mortgaging the subject property despite the apparent dispute over its ownership. Regardless of the merits of his claim, respondent should have exercised prudent restraint expected of a lawyer to avoid any action that could endanger the reputation of the legal profession. His conduct fell short of the exacting standards required of a member of the Bar. Considering it was his first offense and the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court imposed a fine of ₱15,000.00 and issued a stern warning.