View full case

DOMINGA VELASCO ORDONIO v. ATTY. JOSEPHINE PALOGAN EDUARTE

FACTS:

Antonia Ulibari filed a civil case for annulment of a document against her children, which was initially handled by Atty. Henedino Eduarte. However, when Atty. Eduarte was appointed as a judge, his wife, Atty. Josephine Palogan-Eduarte, took over the case. On August 22, 1985, a decision was rendered in favor of Ulibari, except for one of her children who did not appeal. While the case was pending appeal, Ulibari conveyed parcels of land to her children through deeds of absolute sale prepared and notarized by Atty. Palogan-Eduarte. On the same day, Ulibari also conveyed 20 hectares of land as attorney's fees to Atty. Palogan-Eduarte and her husband. However, the titles of the lands remained in Ulibari's name. Ulibari later executed an affidavit stating that she did not convey the subject parcel of land to Atty. Palogan-Eduarte as her attorney's fees and that the deeds of absolute sale were not known to her and without her receiving any consideration. Based on these circumstances, an investigation was conducted, and it was recommended that Atty. Palogan-Eduarte be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The Supreme Court found Atty. Palogan-Eduarte guilty of violating Article 1491 of the Civil Code and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and she was suspended from the practice of law for one year.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Antonia Ulibari was defrauded into signing the Deed of Conveyance transferring to her lawyer the subject parcel of land as attorney's fees.

  2. Whether respondent violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code by causing the execution of the Deed of Conveyance while the case involving the subject property was still pending.

  3. Whether respondent violated Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by improperly acquiring the subject property.

RULING:

  1. Antonia Ulibari never conveyed the subject property to her lawyer as attorney's fees.

  2. Respondent violated Article 1491 of the Civil Code by causing the execution of the Deed of Conveyance during the pendency of the appeal of the case involving the subject property.

  3. Respondent violated Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by improperly acquiring the subject property.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers are prohibited from acquiring by assignment property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession. (Article 1491 of the Civil Code)

  • Lawyers should not purchase any interest in the subject matter of the litigation which they are conducting. (Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics)