FACTS:

The complainant, Urban Bank, Inc., filed an administrative case for disbarment against Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña. The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct in violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The complainant had purchased a parcel of land from the Isabela Sugar Company (ISC), and ISC had hired the respondent to evict the occupants of the property. During the eviction process, the respondent requested a letter of authority from the complainant, which was issued on December 15, 1994, stating that the contract for the respondent's services was with ISC. However, the respondent requested a modification of the letter, and the complainant issued a new one on December 19, 1994. The eviction was subsequently carried out successfully. After more than thirteen months, the respondent filed a collection suit against the complainant, seeking compensation, expenses, damages, and attorney's fees based on the letter of authority. The complainant alleged that the respondent's actions in securing the letter of authority and using it to claim compensation constituted deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. In defense, the respondent argued that the filing of the complaint constituted forum shopping and involved a matter that was sub judice. The case was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, during which both parties presented their evidence, and the commissioner made findings.

ISSUES:

1. • Whether or not the respondent committed malpractice, deceit, and gross misconduct in the practice of his profession as a lawyer.
2. • Whether or not the complainant failed to provide evidence to support the allegations of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

3. Whether the letters informing the respondent of the engagement of his services by the ISC can be used as strong probative evidence against him.

4. Whether the basis of the respondent in instituting the civil case against the complainant was the December 19 letter of authority.

RULING:

1. • The complaint against the respondent is dismissed for lack of merit.
2. • The complainant failed to present evidence to substantiate its claims of deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

3. The letters informing the respondent of the engagement of his services by the ISC cannot be accorded strong probative weight in the absence of any showing that he had actual and ample knowledge of their contents. The letters do not carry his signature, nor the time or date he took possession of them, and they do not indicate that copies were received by him or by any authorized person in his behalf. Therefore, they cannot be used to bind and prejudice the respondent.

4. The civil case instituted by the respondent against the complainant was grounded on an oral contract of agency and not solely on the December 19 letter of authority. The letter was utilized solely as documentary evidence to prove the existence of the agency agreement. The respondent could have instituted the suit even without the letter, as a verbal engagement is sufficient to create an attorney-client relationship.

PRINCIPLES:

• Disbarment proceedings are undertaken for public welfare and to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of unfit individuals.

• The burden of proof is on the complainant in disbarment proceedings, and the required standard of proof is clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.

• Documentary evidence must be properly authenticated and must carry the signature, time, and date of possession in order to be accorded strong probative weight.

• A letter confirming a done deal cannot be the basis of a civil case, rather it is utilized as documentary evidence to prove the existence of a contract.

• A verbal engagement is sufficient to create an attorney-client relationship.