G.R. No. A.M. No. 3216. March 16, 1992
Dominga Velasco Ordonio, petitioner, vs. Atty. Josephine Palogan Eduarte, respondent.

FACTS

On April 18, 1988, Dominga Velasco Ordonio filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Josephine Palogan-Eduarte. The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which submitted a report on August 10, 1989, confirming violations and recommending suspension. The evidence showed that Antonia Ulibari (complainant’s mother) filed Civil Case No. 391 for annulment of a document against her children, initially handled by Atty. Henedino Eduarte (respondent’s husband) until his appointment as RTC judge on October 26, 1984, after which respondent took over. A decision was rendered in favor of Antonia Ulibari on August 22, 1985. While the case was pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, on June 13, 1987, Antonia Ulibari executed deeds of absolute sale (prepared and notarized by respondent) conveying parcels of land to her children. On the same day, Antonia Ulibari also executed a deed conveying 20 hectares of land to respondent and her husband as attorney’s fees. Titles remained in Antonia Ulibari’s name. In an affidavit dated March 2, 1988, Antonia Ulibari stated she never conveyed the land to respondent as attorney’s fees and that the deeds of absolute sale were without her knowledge or consideration.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent defrauded Antonia Ulibari into signing the Deed of Conveyance for attorney’s fees.
2. Whether respondent violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code by acquiring property involved in pending litigation.
3. Whether respondent violated her lawyer’s oath and professional ethics by preparing and notarizing deeds of absolute sale containing false considerations.

RULING

1. The Court found clear evidence from Antonia Ulibari’s affidavit and deposition that she never conveyed the land to respondent as attorney’s fees, indicating potential fraud.
2. Even assuming the conveyance was voluntary, respondent violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers from acquiring, by assignment, property or rights involved in litigation they are handling. The property was in active litigation (first in the lower court, then on appeal), and the prohibition applies regardless of whether the property was purchased or assigned as payment for legal services. This also violated Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics against purchasing interests in litigation subject matter.
3. Respondent admitted the deeds of absolute sale did not involve actual consideration, using the form only to effect transfers per Antonia Ulibari’s wishes. This violated the lawyer’s oath against falsehood and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits falsehoods or misleading the court.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for six months for violating Article 1491 of the Civil Code and an additional six months for violating the lawyer’s oath and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, totaling one year, effective upon finality of the judgment.