AC 9574; (June, 2016) (Digest)
A.C. No. 9574. June 21, 2016
MYRNA M. DEVEZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ALEXANDER M. DEL PRADO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Myrna M. Deveza alleged that in February 2003, respondent Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado purchased her lot in Caloocan City on installment, evidenced by a Contract to Sell. Atty. Del Prado took all copies under the pretext of having it notarized but never provided a copy to Deveza. He defaulted, leaving a balance of P565,950.00. Upon demand, he arranged a meeting at a fast-food branch, where he presented a pre-filled Deed of Absolute Sale, promising full payment after notarization. Deveza and her son signed, after which Atty. Del Prado gave only P5,000.00 and attempted to take the property’s title, which Deveza managed to retrieve. He never paid the balance and later used the fraudulently obtained Deed as evidence in the civil case for rescission filed against him by Deveza.
The Supreme Court required Atty. Del Prado to comment, but he failed to comply. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Despite due notice, he did not attend the mandatory conference or submit his position paper. The IBP Board of Governors found him liable and recommended a five-year suspension from the practice of law, which the Court adopted.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado should be disciplined for professional misconduct.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Del Prado is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege demanding continuous possession of legal qualifications and high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity. Lawyers must uphold the dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any deceitful conduct. Atty. Del Prado’s actions—deceiving the complainant into signing a Deed of Absolute Sale under false pretenses of full payment, subsequently reneging on his obligation, and utilizing the fraudulently procured document in court—constitute dishonesty and deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Canon 7 of the Code.
Furthermore, his blatant disregard for the Court’s and the IBP’s lawful orders, by failing to file his comment, attend the mandatory conference, and submit his position paper despite due notice, constitutes a contemptuous affront to judicial authority. As an officer of the court, he has a duty to obey court processes and respect its authority. His continuous defiance demonstrates a lack of the requisite respect for the legal system. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Alexander M. Del Prado from the practice of law for five years, with a warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.