Republic
of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
DAHLIA Complainant, - versus - ATTY.
ALEXANDER BULAUITAN,
Respondent. |
|
A.C. No. 7280 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO-MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Before the Court is a complaint for
disbarment instituted by the herein complainant Dahlia S. Gacias against Atty.
Alexander Bulauitan on grounds of dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Herein
respondent Atty. Alexander Bulauitan used
to own a parcel of land with an area of 1,242 square meters located at P3,500.00 per square meter.
Out of the total consideration of P322,000.00, complainant initially
paid respondent, as down payment, US$3,100.00, or its equivalent of P82,000.00,
as evidenced by a receipt dated P43 dollar-peso rate of
exchange, amounted to P300,000.00.
As
complainant would also allege in her affidavit-complaint dated
In
his answer in compliance with an order from the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, respondent admitted entering into a land purchase agreement with
the complainant, but stressed the private nature of the transaction between
them. He described as premature the complainant’s demand for delivery of title
inasmuch as the aforementioned agreement was not consummated for complainant’s
failure to pay in full the purchase price of the 92-square meter portion. Respondent admitted, though, that he
undertook to pay back the amount of P300,000.00 as a measure to avoid
scandal, given what to him was complainant’s penchant to make a scene whenever
the opportunity presented itself.
To
the answer, complainant countered with a reply, to which respondent filed a
rejoinder.
In
the meantime, complainant, upon the facts above narrated, filed a criminal
complaint for estafa against the respondent before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Cagayan.
Following
several failed preliminary conferences and hearings, IBP Bar Discipline Hearing Commissioner Wilfredo
E.J. E. Reyes issued, on
In
its report dated November 8, 2005, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommends
that respondent be adjudged guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and meted
the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years.
The
recommendation to suspend and the findings holding it together commend
themselves for concurrence.
The
Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest or deceitful conduct.[4] The
complementing Rule 7.03 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that “a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.” Another complementing provision is found in
the Rules of Court providing that a member of the bar may be suspended or even
removed from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or misconduct
in office.[5] And when the Code or the Rules speaks of “conduct” or “misconduct,” the reference is not confined to one’s behavior
exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyer’s professional
duties, but also covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual
practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law invest him with. To
borrow from Orbe v. Adaza.[6] “[T]he
grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not
limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty,
of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.”
Like
Atty. Adaza in Orbe, respondent Atty.
Bulauitan also refused without justifiable reason to comply with his just
obligation under a contract he entered into with the complainant. There can be
no quibbling as to the complainant having paid respondent the amount of P300,000.00
out of the total contract cost of P322,000.00. In other words, there had
been substantial contract compliance on the part of the complainant. A
reciprocal effort towards complying with his part of the bargain would have
been becoming of respondent, as a man of goodwill. It would appear, however,
that this kind of gesture was alas too much to hope for from the respondent.
For, instead of going through the motion of delivering the portion of his
property to its buyer after his receipt of almost the entire purchase price therefor, the respondent mortgaged the whole property
without so much as informing the complainant about it. Like the IBP
investigating commissioner, the Court finds the respondent’s act of giving the
property in question in mortgage bordering on the fraudulent and surely
dishonest. The Court, to be sure, takes stock of respondent’s attempt to make
amends by promising to return the amount of P300,000.00. But this promise strikes the Court, as it did
the IBP investigating commissioner, as a mere ploy by the respondent to evade
criminal prosecution for estafa, what with the fact that he has yet to make
good his commitment to return.
Respondent had shown, through his dealing with
the complainant involving a tiny parcel of land, a want of professional
honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the moral stuff which he is made of. His fitness to continue
in the advocacy of law and manage the legal affairs of others are thus put in
serious doubt too. The private nature of the transaction or the fact that the same was concluded without the respondent
taking advantage of his legal profession is really of little moment. For, a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to
his private activities, as long as it shows him wanting in honesty, probity or
good demeanor.[7]
While
the Court agrees with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline respecting the guilt
of respondent and the propriety of a suspension, it is not, however, inclined
to impose the severe recommended penalty of suspension for two (2) years.
WHEREFORE, herein respondent, ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN, is found
guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty and ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective upon his receipt
hereof. Let copies of this decision be spread on his record in the Bar
Confidant’s Office and furnished the IBP and the Office of the Court
Administrator for proper dissemination to all courts.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S.
PUNO Associate Justice
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
|
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice
|
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] Records, pp. 1 et seq.
[2] Dated
[3]
[4] Rule 1.01.
[5] Rule 138, Sec. 27 of the Rules of Court.
[6] Adm. Case No. 5252,
[7] Zaguirre v. Castillo, Adm. Case No. 4921, March 6, 2003, 398 SCRA 658, citing Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No. 2040, March 4, 1998, 286 SCRA 758.