3Repuhlfr.

of tbe t)bihppines
~upreme ~ourt
,iflllanila

FIRST DIVISION

ANTONIO T. AGUINALDO, A.C. No. 12086

Complainant, [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

Present:

PERALTA, C.J, Chairperson,

CAGUIOA,
- versus - LAZARO-IAVIER,
LOPEZ, and
GAERLAN,* JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. ISAIAH C. ASUNCION, JR.,
Respondent. OCT O7 2020
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----

DEC I SION

PERALTA, C.J.:

Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment' filed by Antonio T.

Aguinaldo (Aguinaldo) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) seeking to disbar the respondent
Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr. (Atty. Asuncion), for allegedly violating the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The facts are as follows .

Complainant alleged that sometime in October 2010, he, together with

the respondent, the respondent's mother and their agent Mia Gan, talked about
the sale of respondent's property at Banauang, Moncada, Tarlac, consisting of
4.4 hectares. Respondent agreed to sell the property to complainant. As part
of the agreement, the complainant handed to respondent One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Pl 00,000.00) as earnest money. Later, respondent went back
to the complainant asking for Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00)

Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2788 dated September 16, 2020.
Rollo, pp. 2-12.
/
 Decision -2- AC. No. 12086
[Fo1merly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

which the complainant refused to give due to the fact that the respondent failed
to present documents pertaining to the property. Due to the continued failure
of respondent to give the particular details of the property subject of their
agreement, complainant sought the return of his money. Despite repeated
demand, respondent failed to return the earnest money to the damage of the
complainant.

For respondent's failure to return the earnest money, complainant

accuses respondent of fraud and of using his profession to take advantage of
the limited knowledge of the complainant which is in violation of the Lawyer s 1

Oath and the CPR.

On the other hand, the respondent claims that he is wrongfully accused

of fraud by the complainant. He asserts that the agreement he had with the
complainant was that the earnest money would serve as guaranty that the
complainant would not back out from the transaction and that the respondent's
mother would not sell the subject portion of the land to other buyers until
November 20, 2012, the date when the complainant is bound to pay the down
payment of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). He insists that he
is not legally obliged to return the earnest money since the complainant failed
to comply with his own obligation of not paying the down payment on its due
date and is then considered to have backed out from the transaction.

In addition, the respondent explains that the complainant is deemed to

have backed out from the transaction when he was imposing a condition which
was not previously discussed and agreed upon. These conditions include that
the portion of the 4.4 hectares he was buying be first segregated and that a
separate title be issued for said portion, which is contrary to the usual practice
of transactions involving the sale of undivided portion of the land.

Likewise, the respondent asserts that his failure to return the earnest
money does not give rise to any wrongdoing on his part. In support of his
position, he cites the case of Spouses Doromal v. Court of Appeals,2 where
according to him, the Supreme Court had ruled that the money given as earnest
money by the buyer to the sellers was acknowledged to have been received
under the concept of the old Civil Code as a guaranty that the buyer would not
back out, and if they should do so, they would forfeit the amount paid.

Lastly, the respondent claims that he did not use his profession to take
advantage of the limited knowledge of the complainant because the dispute
between them purely involves a contract to sell a land based on complainant's
own terms which did not push through owing to the complainant's failure to
comply with his own obligation.

Spouses Doroma/ v. Court ofAppea/s, 160-A Phil. 85 (I 975).

 Decision -3- A.C. No. 12086
[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

On June 13, 2012, a mandatory conference was held attended by both

parties. They were ordered to submit their respective verified position papers
as well as their respective comments. On August 28, 2012, both parties filed
a Joint Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss3 stating that a settlement between
them was reached out of their mutual desire to make peace with each other.

However, on December 4, 2012, the complainant filed his Position

4
Paper stating that the settlement between him and the respondent did not
materialize for the failure of the respondent to comply with the terms of
settlement. In response, the respondent filed his Manifestation with Comment5
claiming that the complainant did not enter the settlement in good faith
faulting the latter for the not honoring the previous settlement.

Upon a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties in

their respective pleadings, the IBP-CBD submitted its Report and
Recommendation6 dated December 14, 2014 finding Atty. Asuncion to have
violated Canon 1 of the CPR, specifically Rule 1.01 for engaging in deceitful
conduct. Thus, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Asuncion
administratively liable for misconduct and recommended that he be meted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six ( 6) months. This ruling
is based on Atty. Asuncion's failure to disclose material facts regarding the
status of the subject property and his obstinate refusal to return the earnest
money.

In a Resolution7 dated February 25, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors

(IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt the aforesaid Report and Recommendation.
Atty. Asuncion moved for reconsideration reiterating his arguments from
previous pleadings. However, the reconsideration was denied by the IBP
Board of Governors through Notice of Resolution8 No. XXII-17-1269 dated
April 20, 2017.

On February 7, 2018, the IBP-CBD transmitted to the Court the Notices

of Resolution and records of the case for appropriate action.

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not respondent should be

held administratively liable for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

id. at 73-74.
Id. at 75-77.
Id. at 78-82.
Id. at 87-96.
Id. at 85.
Id. at 108.
 Decision -4- A.C. No. 12086
[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

Our Ruling

The Court resolves to adopt the findings of fact of the IBP.

In the present case, the issue between the parties is a contractual dispute
that can be raised before the proper courts. However, a case of suspension or
disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in
a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A
disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his
conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of
the Bar.9

Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed
the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the
Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as
an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the
legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging
the profession of members who by their misconduct have proven themselves
no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining
°
to the office of an attorney. 1 Corollarily, the Court will limit the issue on
whether Atty. Asuncion conunitted transgressions that would have held him
administratively liable for violating the_Code of Professional Responsibility.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and

legal processes. To the best of his ability, a lawyer is expected to respect and
abide by the law and, thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary thereto.
A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character but
it also inspires respect and obedience to the law, on the part of the public. 11

Given the facts of this case, Atty. Asuncion employed trickery by luring
the Aguinaldo into agreeing to buy the subject property. Respondent sh~ uld
9
Cristobal v. Atty. Renta, 743 Phil. 145, 148 (20 14).
10
Junielito Espanlo v. Atty, Envin V. Belleza, A.C. No. 10756, February 21, 2018.
11 Id.
 Decision -5- A.C. No. 12086
[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

not have led the complainant to believe that the subject parcel of land was still
owned by his mother when in truth and in fact, it was already sold to another
buyer. Atty. Asuncion failed to disclose the fact that the property is already
owned by the Posadas family. This was substantiated by the fact that the
respondent failed to produce documents to prove his title/ownership of the
property when it was required by the complainant. As a lawyer, the
respondent was duty-bound to observe fairness and candor in his dealing with
the complainant.

Further, the respondent willfully refused to return the earnest money

given by the complainant, notwithstanding the fact that the transaction did not
materialize. Atty. Asuncion's integrity was placed in serious doubt when the
eainest money was paid by Aguinaldo in advance. It started motivating the
respondent's every move to seemingly evade the pending transaction back
then. The respondent even blamed the complainant for the failed transaction
and insist that the latter had forfeited the earnest money for backing out from
the transaction in view of the unrealistic condition he has imposed and his
failure to pay the down payment.

As correctly pointed out by the IBP-CBD, it states in its Report and

Recommendation that:

Respondent's claim is preposterous. In the first place[,] no document

exist to show that the earnest money was given merely as guaranty that the
complainant would not [back out] from the transaction. Other than a mere
photocopy of what he claims to be a written proposal of the complainant
purp01iedly indicating that the earnest money is not part of the purchase
price, respondent failed to present clear and convincing proof to suppo1i his
claim. 12

Under Article 1482 of the Civil Code, whenever earnest money is given
in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the purchase price and as
proof of the perfection of the contract. Petitioner clearly stated without any
objection from private respondents that the earnest money was intended to
form part of the purchase price. It was an advance payment which must be
deducted from the total price. Hence, the patties could not have intended that
the earnest money or advance payment would be forfeited when the buyer
should fail to pay the balance of the price, especially in the absence of a clear
and express agreement thereon. 13 In the present case, Aguinaldo and Atty.
Asuncion did not agree to have the earnest money forfeited should the buyer
fail to pay the balance of the price since no express agreement exists to support
such claim. Hence, in the first place, Atty. Asuncion should have return the
money when the transaction did not materialize. /

12 Rollo, p. 94.
13
Goldenrod, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 468, 474 ( 1998).
 Decision -6- AC. No. 12086
[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

Moreover, it is apparent that the misrepresentation of the respondent

led the complainant to agree to buy the subject property and parted with the
earnest money. The utter lack of good faith of the respondent was evident
from his acts. First, despite the persistent demand by the complainant, the
respondent stubbornly refused to give back the earnest money considering that
the transaction did not push through. Second, regardless of the chances that
has been given to the respondent to return the earnest money, he simply
ignored the complainant. It must be noted that there has been a negotiated
settlement between the parties in this case but the respondent again failed to
return the money attributing to the complainant the fault for the non-
fulfillment of the respondent's obligation.

The Court has ruled that to be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie,
cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be untrustworthy; lacking in integrity,
honesty, probity, integrity in principle, fairness and straightforwardness. We
have also ruled that conduct that is "deceitful" means the proclivity for
fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device that is used
upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of
the party imposed upon. In order to be deceitful, the person must either have
knowledge of the falsity or acted in reckless and conscious ignorance thereof,
especially if the parties are not on equal terms, and was done with the intent
that the aggrieved pai1y act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance of
the false statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his injury. 14

Accordingly, there seems to be nothing unreasonable with the

expectation that Atty. Asuncion exercises good faith in all his dealings,
whether in his professional or private capacity. Here, the Court cannot ascribe
good faith to the respondent as he did not show any willingness to make good
of his obligation. Instead, as noted by the IBP-CDB, he continued to buy time
and puts up new excuses for his failure to return the earnest money. Time and
again, the Court has ruled that membership in the legal profession is a high
personal privilege burdened with conditions, including continuing fidelity to
the law and constant possession of moral fitness. Lawyers, as guardians of
the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society, and a consequent
obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.
Failure to live by the standards of the legal profession and to discharge the
burden of the privilege conferred on one as a member of the bar warrant the
suspension or revocation of that privilege. 15

In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no cogent reason to depart

from the resolution of the IBP-BOG to suspend the respondent from the
practice oflaw for a period of six (6) months. Respondent's failure to disclose
material facts regarding the status of the subject property and his obstin~

14
Ana Maria Kare v. Atty. Catalina L. Tumaliuan, A.C. No. 8777, October 9, 2019.
15
id.
' ' '

Decision -7- A.C. No. 12086

[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

refusal to return the earnest money constitutes misconduct which should be

administratively sanctioned.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Isaiah C. Asuncion, Jr. is hereby

found GUILTY of committing dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent acts
prejudicial to the legal profession and in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, reckoned from receipt
of this Decision, with WARNING that a similar misconduct in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance.
The Court Administrator is DIRECTED to CIRCULATE this Decision to
all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.
 f' f I t;

Decision -8- A.C. No. 12086

[Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3300]

WE CONCUR:

S. CAGUIOA

AMY1 ~q{z;:;;~~JA
~~sociate Justice
VIER

SA~U:t~~AN
Associate Justice