FIRST DIVISION

[A.C. No. 6738. August 12, 2015.]

GABRIELA CORONEL, petitioner, vs. ATTY. NELSON A.

CUNANAN, respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J : p

A lawyer who proposes to his client a recourse or remedy that is

contrary to law, public policy, public order and public morals, or that lessens
the public confidence in the legal system is guilty of gross misconduct, and
should be suspended from the practice of law, or even disbarred.
Antecedents
On May 17, 2005, the complainant initiated this disbarment case against
Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan, alleging that he had advised and convinced her to
engage him for the transfer of Original Certificate of Title No. 9616 and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-72074, which were both registered in the
name of their deceased grandparents, to her name and to the names of her
co-heirs by direct registration with the Office of the Register of Deeds in
violation of the proper legal procedure; that following the engagement, he had
received from her the amount of P70,000.00 for the payment of the transfer
and other fees, and had misappropriated the same; and that he had not
returned the money and the owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-72074. 1
The Court ordered the respondent to comment on the complaint on July
11, 2005, 2 but he complied only on March 7, 2006. 3 In turn, the complainant
submitted her reply on March 20, 2006. 4
Proceedings before the IBP
On July 31, 2006, the Court referred this case to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. 5
On February 21, 2007, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline set the
mandatory conference on April 11, 2007, and notified the parties thereof. 6 At
the hearing, the parties defined the issues upon which they would submit
their position papers. The complainant stated the issue to be whether or not
the actions of the respondent constituted malpractice, deceit or gross
misconduct. The respondent defined the issue to be whether or not he had
acted in a deceitful manner or committed any misconduct by entering into the
contract of legal services with the complainant based on terms mutually
agreed upon between them. Only the complainant submitted her verified
position paper. 7 EATCcI

On February 20, 2008, the complainant requested the early resolution of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 her complaint. 8 On September 1, 2009, however, she submitted an affidavit
of desistance, 9 whereby she stated that she had meanwhile made amends
with the respondent, and that the disbarment complaint had been due to a
misunderstanding between them. A few days later, the parties also submitted
their Joint Motion to Dismiss dated September 15, 2009, 10 which the Court
referred to the IBP on November 18, 2009. 11
On May 14, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors issued its resolution
adopting and approving, with modification, the report and recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner finding the respondent guilty of malpractice
and negligence; recommending his suspension from the practice of law for six
months; and requiring his return of the P70,000.00 to the complainant. 12
On August 8, 2011, the respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 13
citing the affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant and their Joint
Motion to Dismiss. The IBP Board of Governors denied the Motion for
Reconsideration on December 15, 2012. 14
Report and Recommendation of the IBP
The report of the Investigating Commissioner recited the following
summary of the factual antecedents, to wit:
Complainant recounts that sometime in October 2003, she
engaged the services Respondent to transfer to her name and her co-
heirs the parcels of land covered under TCT No. T-72074 and OCT No.
9616, which certificates of title are both registered under the name of
Complainant's deceased grandparents. Respondent advised
Complainant that for the registration of TCT No. T-72074, the transfer
may be effected by two means namely: first, by way of "ordinary
procedure"; and second, by way of "direct registration". Ordinary
procedure involves transfer by way of execution of Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement, publication, payment of capital gains tax, etc., and
registration with the Register of Deeds. Transfer by this means will cost
Complainant an estimate of Php56,000.00 with the amount of
Php50,000.00 more or less to be spent for the payment of taxes.
Transfer by this means may take a period of at least five (5) months.
Direct registration, on the other hand, involves preparing documents
upon advise of the Register of Deeds and will involve an estimated cost
to be negotiated with the officials or employees of the Register of Deeds
to a flat amount of Php50,000.00. Transfer by this means will take only
one (1) month or less. As for the transfer of OCT No. 9616, Respondent
advised Complainant of the filing of a petition for issuance of Owner's
Duplicate Copy and thereafter, to proceed with the transfer in the same
manner as that outlined in the transfer of TCT No. T-72074.
It appears that Complainant and Respondent agreed on the direct
registration approach because sometime thereafter, Respondent billed
Complainant with the following fees: Php50,000.00 as package deal for
the direct transfer of title for TCT No. T-72074; another Php50,000 as
package deal for the transfer of title for OCT No. 9616; Php5,000 for
litigation expenses for issuance of duplicate copy of OCT 9616 and
another Php15,000 as professional fees, to which Complainant agreed.
On October 28, 2003, Complainant paid Respondent
Php70,000.00 pesos [sic].
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 According to Complainant, she thereafter tried to contact
Respondent but the latter cannot be contacted. Thus, she was
constrained to write Respondent a letter dated March 5, 2004 asking
the latter to contact her.
Subsequently, Respondent sent to Complainant an Extra-judicial
Settlement Agreement. Complainant had it signed and sent back to
Respondent. Thereafter, Respondent asked Complainant for the owner's
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-72074, which complainant, likewise, sent to
Respondent.
Afterwards, Complainant heard nothing from Respondent. When
her request for a call from Respondent was not heeded, Complainant
wrote Respondent demanding that the amount of Php70,000 which she
paid to Respondent be returned to her as well as the owner's duplicate
copy of TCT No. 72074. When Respondent refused, Complainant filed
the instant disbarment case charging the former with deceit,
malpractice and gross misconduct.
In his Comment, Respondent admitted most of the allegations of
Complainant. However, he denied that there was deceit on his part
insisting that he clearly outlined to Complainant the available procedures
for the transfer of title and afforded Complainant the opportunity to
think about the options. He claimed that there was nothing illicit in
suggesting the direct registration scheme as the same was advised to
him by the officials and employees of the Register of Deeds upon his
inquiry thereto. Respondent further argued that he was in constant
communication with Complainant and that he processed the transaction
for the transfer of registration but that the transfer could not be
effected because the documents were inadequate and due, also, to the
fact that several officials and employees of the Register of Deeds with
whom he was transacting were transferred to other offices due to a
revamp in the said office. Respondent added that he continued with the
processing of the transfer and that he submitted the matter anew for
the approval of the new officials of the Register of Deeds. However, the
new officers have not yet approved the same. 15
Ruling of the Court
We AFFIRM the findings and recommendations of the IBP. DHITCc

A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes. 16 He shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; 17 or counsel or abet
activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a lessening of confidence in the
legal system. 18 He should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or
disobey it. Conversely, he should not recommend to his client any recourse or
remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and public morals.
Although the respondent outlined to the complainant the "ordinary
procedure" of an extrajudicial settlement of estate as a means of transferring
title, he also proposed the option of "direct registration" despite being fully
aware that such option was actually a shortcut intended to circumvent the
law, and thus patently contrary to law. The transfer under the latter option
would bypass the immediate heirs of their grandparents (i.e., the
complainant's parent and her co-heirs parents), and consequently deprive the
Government of the corresponding estate taxes and transfer fees aside from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 requiring the falsification of the transfer documents. He assured that he could
enable the direct transfer with the help of his contacts in the Office of the
Register of Deeds and other relevant agencies of the Government, which
meant that he would be bribing some officials and employees of those offices.
The proposal of "direct registration" was unquestionably unlawful, immoral
and deceitful all at once.
The respondent argues that his proposal did not deceive the complainant
because he had informed her on all the "steps" to be taken on her behalf. His
argument misses the point, which is that he made the proposal despite its
patent illegality in order to take advantage of the complainant's limited legal
knowledge of the regular procedures for the transfer of title under
circumstances of intestacy. In other words, he made her agree to the "direct
registration" through deceitful misrepresentation. He then ignored the written
demands from her, which forced her in the end to finally charge him with
disbarment. He thereby abused his being a lawyer to the hilt in order to cause
not only his client but also the public in general to doubt the sincerity of the
members of the Law Profession, and consequently diminish the public's trust
and confidence in lawyers in general.
Lastly, the respondent pleads for the Court to consider in his favor the
fact that the complainant subsequently executed the affidavit of desistance,
and later on the Joint Motion to Dismiss.
His plea is unworthy of consideration.
An administrative case proceeds independently from the interest, or lack
thereof, of the complainant, who only sets the case in motion through the
filing of the complaint. Upon her doing so, she becomes a witness to testify
against the respondent lawyer. The disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer
do not involve private interests, but only how the lawyer conducts himself in
his public and private lives. Accordingly, neither the affidavit of desistance nor
t h e Joint Motion to Dismiss should bear any weight, or be relevant in
determining whether or not the respondent was fit to remain as a member of
the Law Profession. The desistance by the complainant was a matter that was
the concern only of the parties, and was non-binding on the Court. What will
be decisive in this administrative proceeding are the facts borne out by the
evidence competently adduced herein. 19
The complainant testified that the respondent had proposed to her two
methods to transfer title, and one was patently contrary to law. She presented
documentary proof to her testimony against him. She established that he had
not communicated with her after receiving the money and the documents.
The affidavit of desistance and the Joint Motion to Dismiss only came about
after the complainant had completed her testimony, a true indication that
their submission was done in hindsight and insincerely. His remorse, if it was
that, came too late.
I n Bengco v. Bernardo, 20 the respondent lawyer was suspended for one
year from the practice of law because he had represented that he could
expedite the titling of the clients' property with the help of his contacts in
various government offices, including the Department of Natural Resources,
the Community Environment Office, and Register of Deeds. After convincing
his clients through such representations, and taken their money for that
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 purpose, he did not bother to even update them on the progress of the
undertaking. In that regard, he was also convicted of estafa.
I n Espinosa v. Omaña, 21 the respondent lawyer was also suspended for
one year from the practice of law for advising her clients that they could
legally live separately and dissolve their marriage by executing the Kasunduan
ng Paghihiwalay (Agreement to Separate) that she had drafted. Her advice
was blatantly contrary to law and public policy.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Resolution dated
May, 14, 2011 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors,
WITH MODIFICATION as to the recommended penalty by suspending
respondent Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan from the practice of law for one year
effective immediately upon his receipt of this decision.
The Court ORDERS respondent Atty. Cunanan to RETURN to the
complainant the amount of P70,000.00 within 10 days from receipt of this
decision, and to report on his compliance within five days thereafter.
Let copies of this decision be entered in the personal records of
respondent Atty. Cunanan in the Office of the Bar Confidant, and be furnished
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court
Administrator for dissemination to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2. Id. at 23.

3. Id, at 29-31.
4. Id. at 33-36.
5. Id. at 39.

6. Id. at 81-82.
7. Id. at 55-64.

8. Id. at 53-54.
9. Id. at 101.

10. Id. at 46-47.

11. Id. at 49-50.
12. Id. at 105.

13. Id. at 111-113.

14. Id. at 124.

15. Id. at 107-108.

16. Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 17. Id., Rule 1.01.
18. Id., Rule 1.02.
19. See Yu v. Palaña, A.C. 7747, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 26, 28.

20. A.C. 6368, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 8, 20.

21. A.C. 9081, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 1, 7.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com