AM 2538; (June, 1987) (Digest)
Adm. Matter No. 2538. June 30, 1987. Amante E. Sanglay vs. Atty. Antonio Quirino.
FACTS
Respondent Atty. Antonio Quirino was the counsel and attorney-in-fact for complainant Amante Sanglay’s mother, Flora Sanglay, in a civil case for recovery of a sum of money. The plaintiff, Jovita Malan Deposito, claimed she made advance payments totaling over P41,000 for the purchase of Flora’s property. Flora admitted receiving the amounts but sought more time to find a better buyer. Acting under a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) from Flora, which expressly authorized him to enter into an amicable settlement or compromise, Atty. Quirino concluded a compromise agreement with the plaintiff’s counsel. This agreement was approved by the trial court as a judgment.
Subsequently, Flora Sanglay, through other counsel, filed various motions and a petition for certiorari to challenge the compromise judgment, all of which were denied by the courts for lack of merit. The complainant, Amante Sanglay, then initiated this administrative case, alleging that Atty. Quirino abused the power of attorney by entering into the compromise without his mother’s knowledge and consent, failed to present a vital forged deed of sale as evidence, and did not return case documents. The case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. Antonio Quirino committed professional misconduct or was unfaithful to his trust as counsel by entering into the compromise agreement.
RULING
The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic rests on the explicit authority granted by the Special Power of Attorney and the judicial affirmations of the compromise’s validity. The SPA expressly authorized Atty. Quirino “to offer and enter into any amicable settlement” and “to sign the compromise agreement.” This clear mandate provided the legal basis for his actions. Both the trial court, in its order denying a petition for relief, and the Court of Appeals, in dismissing the certiorari petition, upheld the compromise agreement. They found it was duly authorized by the SPA and that its terms—requiring only the return of the received amounts with interest within a six-month period, without forcing a sale of the property—were fair, just, and consistent with the antecedent facts of the case.
The Court, adopting the Solicitor General’s investigation report, found no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or unfaithfulness. The respondent’s act was a legitimate exercise of his conferred authority aimed at resolving his client’s precarious legal situation, which involved a pending foreclosure. The charges of withholding documents and failing to present alleged forged evidence were insufficient to overturn the established validity of his authorized acts and the subsequent judicial approvals. Therefore, no disciplinary action was warranted.