Cerilla vs. Lezama

Luzviminda Cerilla vs. Atty.
Samuel Lezama
A.C. No. 11483 | 10-03-2017
PERALTA, J.
FACTS:
Luzviminda S. Cerilla filed an administrative complaint for gross
misconduct against respondent Atty. Samuel SM. Lezama.
She is one of the co-owners of a parcel of land located
at Barangay Poblacion. Being a co-owner of the subject property, complainant
engaged the services of respondent to file an unlawful detainer case against
Carmelita S. Garlito
However, at that time, complainant was working at Camp Aguinaldo in
EDSA; hence, she executed a special power of attorney (SPA) in favor of
respondent to represent her in filing of the case, to appear during preliminary
conference, including amicable settlement of the case if necessary. Thereafter, by
virtue of the SPA, respondent entered into a compromise agreement with the
defendant, to sell the property of complainant for P350,000, without her consent
or special authority. The compromise agreement was approved; hence, a writ of
execution was issued.
Complainant averred that she did not authorize the respondent to sell the
property and she is not willing to sell the property in the amount of P350,000.00,
considering that there are other co-owners of the property. Complainant
contended that by entering into the compromise agreement to sell the subject
property without any special power to do so, respondent committed gross
misconduct in the discharge of his duties to his client which was the proximate
cause of the loss of the subject property in the ejectment case. Hence, he should be
suspended or disbarred.
Respondent contended that the SPA given to him by the complainant was
sufficient authority to enter into the said compromise agreement. The amount of
P350,000.00 was the price of the subject property, because the complainant paid
the same amount for the purchase of the property from the Gringio family.
According to the respondent, he entered into the compromise agreement
under the honest and sincere belief that it was the fairest and most equitable
arrangement. To penalize lawyers for their judgment calls in cases where they are
armed with authority to settle would wreak havoc on our system of litigation,
making them hesitant, apprehensive and wary that their clients might file
disciplinary cases against them for the slightest reasons.
The IBP- Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating Canons 15 and
17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended a suspension
from the practice of law for two (2) years. During the preliminary conference,
respondent admitted that complainant did not grant him the authority to sell the
property in P350,000. Hence, he acted beyond the scope of his authority. The IBP-
Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the
investigating commissioner.
1
Luzviminda Cerilla vs. Atty. Samuel Lezama
A.C. No. 11483 | 10-03-2017
PERALTA, J.
ISSUE/s:
Whether or not respondent should be held liable for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility
RULING:
Yes, respondent is found guilty of violating Canons 5, 15, and 17 of the CPR.
Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension from the practice of law for
a period of 2 years.
The SPA authorized respondent to represent complainant in filing the
ejectment case and "[t]o appear on [complainant's] behalf during the preliminary
conference in said ejectment case and to make stipulations of fact, admissions and
other matters for the early resolution of the case, including amicable settlement of
the case if necessary." Nowhere is it expressly stated in the SPA that respondent is
authorized to compromise on the sale of the property or to sell the property of
complainant.
As the SPA granted to him by the complainant did not contain the power to
sell the property, respondent clearly acted beyond the scope of his authority in
entering into the compromise agreement wherein the property was sold to the
defendant Carmelita S. Garlito.
Respondent stated that his action was based on an honest belief that he
was serving both the interest of his client and the policy of the law to settle cases
amicably. However, his justification does not persuade, because his alleged honest
belief prejudiced his client, since the property she was not willing to sell was sold
at a price decided upon by respondent on his own, which caused his client and her
co-owners to file further cases to recover their property that was sold due to
respondent's mistake. Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
CANON 5 – A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING
INFORMATION REGARDING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
As found by the IBP Board of Governors, respondent also violated Canons
15 and 17 of the Code of Responsibility:
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENT.
CANON 17- A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT
AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

Cerilla vs. Lezama

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cerilla vs. Lezama

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cerilla vs. Lezama

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luzviminda Cerilla vs. Atty.

You might also like