## FACTS:

In this administrative case, Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera was accused of various violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Revised Rules of Court. The complainants alleged that Atty. Herrera misrepresented the representation of the heirs in the complaint for revival of judgment. He also failed to inform the court about the death of Gaudencio in a timely manner. Atty. Herrera was accused of filing pleadings without authority and against the objections of the heirs. He was also accused of failing to promptly account for funds received from the Compromise Agreement. Lastly, Atty. Herrera was accused of violating the rule on conflict of interest.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended the disbarment of Atty. Herrera. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation with modifications, suspending Atty. Herrera from the practice of law for three years. Atty. Herrera filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the IBP Board of Governors.

This case arose from a complaint filed by Abner Mangubat against Atty. Herrera. Abner claimed that Atty. Herrera had been engaged by Gaudencio Mangubat to file a complaint for the revival of judgment. Atty. Herrera admitted that his engagement was only with Gaudencio and no special power of attorney was presented. A compromise agreement was later executed, and Atty. Herrera filed a motion for execution. However, the sheriff failed to execute the judgment as Belen Morga-Seva was not present. Gaudencio passed away and Abner hired Atty. Haide Gumba to represent him. Atty. Herrera later filed a motion to hold the award in custody pending the settlement of Gaudencio's estate, which was granted by the court. Atty. Herrera then filed a compliance stating that he received a certain amount from Belen's son, and a deed of conditional sale was executed. Atty. Herrera filed a motion for the clerk of court to draft and execute the deed of sale, which was granted. This led to a case filed by Belen against Abner to compel him to surrender the property title.

Atty. Herrera claimed that the complaint against him was a retaliation and cited the estranged relationship between Abner and Gaudencio and the probate court's decision disinheriting Abner. He admitted filing pleadings for Gaudencio after his death but argued that he notified the other heirs and none of them claimed their shares. Atty. Herrera also argued against any conflict of interest in drafting and notarizing the deed of sale for Silvestre.

ISSUES

I. Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for indicating that the heirs of Aurelia were represented by Raquel in the complaint for revival of judgment when it was not true.

II. Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for his failure to timely inform the court about Gaudencio's death.

III. Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for filing pleadings in court without authority and despite the objections of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio.

IV. Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for failing to promptly account for the funds he received as a result of the Compromise Agreement.

V. Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for failing to observe the rule on conflict of interest.

RULING

The Court ruled that Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for all the issues presented:

1. He misrepresented the representation of the heirs of Aurelia by indicating that Raquel represented them in the complaint for the revival of judgment, despite not having the proper authority or supporting documentation to do so.

2. He failed to inform the court timely of Gaudencio's death, violating Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which mandates prompt notification of a party's death.

3. He filed pleadings without authority from the heirs he claimed to represent and continued legal representation after Gaudencio's death without any retainer from the other heirs, contravening rules of legal representation and procedure.

4. He was liable for not properly accounting for the funds from the Compromise Agreement by delay in remitting the funds to the clerk of court, violating financial management rules applicable to lawyers.

5. He breached the rule on conflict of interest by acting for opposing parties in the same legal matter without the written consent of all parties involved after making significant legal moves that unduly favored one party over another.

As a result of these violations, the Court modified the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors and imposed disbarment from the practice of law on Atty. Herrera.

PRINCIPLES

1. A lawyer must not misrepresent nor falsely claim representative authority in legal proceedings.

2. Timely notification of the court regarding client's death by counsel is mandatory.

3. Authority to file legal pleadings must be clearly established and maintained; unauthorized legal representation is prohibited.

4. Lawyers are required to manage and account for client funds with utmost integrity and promptness.

5. Representation of conflicting interests without full disclosure and explicit consent from all concerned is unethical and disallowed.