View full case

JESSIE R. DE LEON v. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO

FACTS:

This administrative case involves a civil action filed by the Government to correct the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) covering two parcels of land owned by Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu. Two years later, Jessie R. De Leon voluntarily joined the case as an intervenor and accuses the respondent attorney, Atty. Castelo, of dishonesty and falsification. Atty. Castelo allegedly filed various pleadings on behalf of the deceased spouses, despite them already being deceased at the time of filing. Atty. Castelo explains that he was engaged by the children of the spouses to represent the family and believed that the spouses were still alive when he prepared the pleadings. A reply was submitted by De Leon asserting that Atty. Castelo's claim of representing the family is deceptive.

The case involves a complaint against a respondent attorney for alleged falsehood or falsification in his pleadings in Civil Case No. 4674MN. The complaint was filed directly to the Philippine Bar and the court decides to hear the complaint on its merits. Attorneys in the Philippines have sworn to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and uphold ethical norms that require attorneys to act with honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. It is expected that attorneys refrain from engaging in any form of unlawful conduct and conduct themselves with good faith and fidelity to the courts and their clients. They are disciples of truth and must inform the court correctly upon the law and facts of the case. The respondent attorney filed an answer on behalf of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu, admitting the allegations of the complaint and stating that the defendants had already sold the parcels of land.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim on behalf of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN.

  2. Whether or not the respondent's representation of the defendants in the said case was improper joinder of parties.

  3. Whether the death of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu has any significant relevance in the case.

  4. Whether defendants Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo should be substituted as defendants in the principal complaint.

  5. Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making the averments in the pleadings of the defendants?

RULING:

  1. The respondent did not violate the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he filed an answer with counterclaim and cross-claim on behalf of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4674MN.

  2. The issue regarding improper joinder of parties is not ruled upon in this case.

  3. The death of defendants Lim Hio and Dolores Chu is not relevant to the case. They have already sold and transferred the subject property to defendants Leonardo Lim and William Lim. Therefore, they have lost any title, claim, or legal interest in the property.

  4. Defendants Leonardo Lim and Sally Khoo should be substituted as defendants in the principal complaint since they are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property and the real parties-in-interest in the case.

  5. The respondent did not violate the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in making the averments in the pleadings of the defendants. The plain reading of the pleadings indicates that the respondent did not misrepresent that the parties involved were still living. Even if there may have been an impression created that they were still living, the respondent cannot be held guilty of any dishonesty or falsification. His pleadings were privileged as he was acting in the interest of the actual owners of the properties. The transfer of ownership had already occurred before the institution of the action, making the status of the parties immaterial. Additionally, the complainant had prior knowledge that the parties were no longer living and therefore cannot claim that the respondent committed any dishonesty or falsification.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Attorneys enjoy privileges in representing their clients' causes and protecting their clients' confidences.

  • Attorneys hold the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior.

  • Attorneys have the right to freely and courageously speak for their clients in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, without facing criminal prosecution or actions for damages.

  • The principles of prescription and laches may be used as defenses to bar a suit due to unreasonable delay in bringing the suit.

  • Estoppel may be used as a defense when the party invoking it issued the titles to the subject property.

  • The death of a party may not be relevant to a case if it has already been established that the party has sold or transferred their rights and interest to another individual or entity.

  • The real parties-in-interest should be substituted as defendants in a case once it has been determined that they are the registered and lawful owners of the subject property and the necessary parties for a final determination.

  • Pleadings filed by a lawyer in the interest of his clients are privileged and would not occasion any action against him as an attorney.

  • The status of parties in a legal action becomes immaterial if there has been a transfer of ownership prior to the institution of the action.

  • A complainant bringing an accusation of unethical conduct against a lawyer must do so in good faith. The court demands good faith in order to shield a lawyer's reputation from mindless assault by the unscrupulous and the malicious.