A.C. No. 7749 - JOSEFINA CARANZA VDA. DE SALDIVAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, JR..R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent filed a Manifestation with Compliance [10] dated May 19, 2008, admitting to have agreed to represent complainant who claimed to be the tenant and rightful occupant of the subject property owned by the late Pelagia Lascano (Pelagia). He alleged that upon careful examination of the heirs' unlawful detainer complaint, he noticed a discrepancy between the descriptions of the subject property as indicated in the said pleading as opposed to that which complainant supplied to him. On the belief that the parties may be contesting two (2) sets of properties which are distinct and separate from one another, respondent, at the preliminary conference conducted on October 28, 2003, moved for the suspension of further proceedings and proposed that a commissioner be appointed to conduct a re-survey in order to determine the true identity of the property in dispute. The MTC allowed the counsels for both parties to decide on the manner of the proposed re-survey, leading to the assignment of a Department of Agrarian Reform Survey Engineer (DAR Engineer) for this purpose. In relation, the heirs counsel agreed to turn-over to respondent in his office [11] certain documents which indicated the subject propertys description. Thus, pending the conduct and results of the re-survey, the preliminary conference was tentatively reset to November 27, 2003. [12] As it turned out, the heirs counsel was unable to furnish respondent copies of the above-stated documents, notwithstanding their agreement. This led the latter to believe that the preliminary conference scheduled on November 27, 2003 would not push through. Respondent averred that the aforesaid setting also happened to coincide with an important provincial conference which he was required to attend. As such, he inadvertently missed the hearing. [13] Nonetheless, he proffered that he duly appealed the adverse MTC Decision to the RTC, [14] resulting to the dismissal of the unlawful detainer complaint, albeit later reversed by the CA. Thereafter, pending the heirs' appeal to the CA, respondent came upon the information that the disputed property was subject of a petition for exemption from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 [15] filed by Pelagia against complainants mother, Placida Caranza (Placida). Based on several documents furnished to him by certain DAR personnel, respondent was satisfied that Placida indeed held the subject property for a long time and actually tilled the same in the name of Pelagia, thereby placing it under PD 27 coverage. Due to such information, respondent was convinced that Placida and consequently, complainant (who took over the tilling) was indeed entitled to the subject property. Hence, he advised complainant that it would be best to pursue remedies at the administrative level, instead of contesting the appeal filed by the heirs before the CA. It was respondents calculated legal strategy that in the event the CA reverses the decision of the RTC,