A.C. No. 5948 (Formerly A.M. No. CBD-354) - GAMALIEL ABAQUETA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. BERNARDITO A. FLORIDO.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent entered his appearance in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R as counsel for herein complainant. [4] Subsequently, he filed complainants Objections and Comments to Inventory and Accounting, registering complainants objection . . . to the inclusion of the properties under Items 1 to 5 contained in the inventory of the administratrix dated November 9, 1983. These properties are the sole and exclusive properties of the oppositor per the latest tax declarations already marked as Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the Formal Offer of Exhibits by oppositor in writing dated August 17, 1983 xxx. [5] Several years later, Milagros Yap Abaqueta filed an action for sum of money against complainant, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11453 and entitled, Milagros Yap Abaqueta vs. Gamaliel Abaqueta and Casiano Gerona. [6] Respondent signed the Complaint as counsel for plaintiff Milagros Yap Abaqueta, averring, inter alia, that: Plaintiff and defendant Gamaliel Abaqueta are the conjugal owners of those certain parcels of land, more particularly as follows The parcels of land referred to as conjugal property of complainant and Milagros Yap-Abaqueta are the very same parcels of land in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R which respondent, as lawyer of complainant, alleged as the sole and exclusive properties of complainant. In short, respondent lawyer made allegations in Civil Case No. CEB-11453 which were contrary to and in direct conflict with his averments as counsel for complainant in Special Proceedings No. 3971-R. Complainant further averred that respondent admitted he was never authorized by the former to appear as counsel for complainants ex-wife in Civil Case No. CEB-11453; that respondent failed to indicate in the Complaint the true and correct address of herein complainant, which respondent knew as far back as August 2, 1990, when he wrote a letter to the complainant at the said address. [7] Consequently, complainant failed to receive summons and was declared in default in Civil Case No. CEB-11453. While the order of default was eventually set aside, complainant incurred expenses to travel to the Philippines, which were conservatively estimated at $10,000.00. He argues that respondents conduct constitute professional misconduct and malpractice as well as trifling with court processes. In his defense, respondent claims in his Answer [8] that he always acted in good faith in his professional relationship with complainant in spite of the fact that they have not personally met. He based the matters he wrote in the Complaint on information and documents supplied by Mrs. Charito Y. Baclig, complainants sister-in-law and attorney-in-fact, indicating that he was sole and exclusive owner of the properties. This was sometime in November 1983. No affidavit of adjudication was ever furnished respondent by complainant and this was apparently suppressed because it would show that the properties formed part of the estate. Eight years la