In Basiyo v. Alisuag, the Supreme Court addressed the ethical responsibilities of lawyers, particularly concerning honesty, competence, and fidelity to clients. The Court found Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag guilty of deceit and falsification for notarizing documents with discrepancies, failing to fulfill his obligations to his clients, and refusing to account for funds entrusted to him. This decision underscores the high standards of conduct expected of members of the bar and reinforces the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession. Alisuag was suspended from the practice of law for two years and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

Conflicting Deeds and Broken Trust: When an Attorney Falls Short

Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons, a common-law couple, sought to expand their pension house business in Palawan. They engaged Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag to facilitate the purchase of a property. Alisuag recommended a lot and assured them that the vendors had the full right to sell it, even though it was registered under another person’s name. The situation became problematic when Alisuag prepared and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale for P1,973,820.00. Later, another Deed of Sale surfaced, notarized by Alisuag, indicating a purchase price of only P120,000.00. This discrepancy raised serious concerns about Alisuag’s integrity and his handling of the transaction.

Adding to the complainants’ woes, Alisuag failed to secure the necessary environmental permits and did not file a promised civil suit against a claimant of the property, despite receiving funds for these purposes. He also neglected to provide a proper accounting of the expenses related to the property purchase. These actions led Basiyo and Simmons to file a complaint against Alisuag for deceit, falsification, and malpractice. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether Alisuag’s actions constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and warranted disciplinary measures.

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented and found Alisuag’s conduct to be in clear violation of his duties as a lawyer. The Court emphasized that lawyers must uphold the law and protect the integrity of the legal profession.

“[A] member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.” (Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court)

By notarizing a deed of sale with a significantly lower purchase price, Alisuag facilitated the evasion of correct tax payments, thereby undermining the government’s revenue collection efforts.

Moreover, the Court noted Alisuag’s failure to fulfill his obligations to his clients, specifically his failure to file the civil suit against Ganzon and secure the environmental permits. These omissions directly contravened the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that lawyers serve their clients with competence and diligence. Canon 17 of the CPR states: “A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.” This canon highlights the fiduciary duty that lawyers owe to their clients, requiring them to act in the client’s best interest and to honor the trust placed in them.

Alisuag also violated Canon 16 of the CPR, which requires lawyers to hold in trust all moneys and properties of their clients.

“A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.”

His refusal to provide an accounting of the expenses and return the unutilized amount raised suspicions of conversion, further damaging his credibility and violating the ethical standards expected of legal professionals. The Court emphasized that lawyers must be transparent and accountable in their handling of client funds.

The Supreme Court’s decision reflects a firm stance against unethical conduct within the legal profession. The penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of his notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public serves as a stern warning to other lawyers who may be tempted to engage in similar behavior. The ruling reinforces the importance of honesty, diligence, and fidelity to clients as fundamental principles of legal practice. The Court also addressed the issue of requiring the lawyer to render an accounting and return any remaining unutilized amount, clarifying that:

“said rule remains applicable only when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct from, and not intrinsically linked to, his professional engagement, as in the present case.”

The Court also emphasized the heightened duty of public service for notaries public. In this regard, the Court cited several jurisprudence, including Orlando S. Castelo, et al. v. Atty. Ronald Segundino C. Ching, A.C. No. 11165, February 6, 2017, and Mariano v. Atty. Echanez, A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016, to highlight the importance of diligence and integrity in notarizing documents:

“Like the duty to defend a client’s cause within the bounds of law, a notary public has the additional duty to preserve public trust and confidence in his office by observing extra care and diligence in ensuring the integrity of every document that comes under his notarial seal, and seeing to it that only documents that he personally inspected and whose signatories he personally identified are recorded in his notarial books.”

This ruling is significant because it highlights the responsibilities of lawyers to their clients, to the legal profession, and to the public. The Court’s decision ensures that lawyers are held accountable for their actions, thereby maintaining the integrity and credibility of the legal system. The case also provides clear guidance on the ethical standards expected of lawyers, particularly in handling client funds and fulfilling their professional obligations. It serves as a reminder that the practice of law is a privilege that comes with significant responsibilities, and those who fail to uphold these standards will face disciplinary action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Alisuag violated the Code of Professional Responsibility through deceit, falsification, and malpractice in his handling of a property transaction for his clients.
What specific actions did Atty. Alisuag take that led to the complaint?	Atty. Alisuag notarized conflicting deeds of sale with different purchase prices, failed to secure necessary permits, did not file a promised lawsuit, and refused to provide an accounting of expenses.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility?	The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) is a set of ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines, ensuring they maintain integrity, competence, and fidelity in their practice.
What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Alisuag?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Alisuag from the practice of law for two years, revoked his notarial commission, and perpetually disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Why did the Court focus on the conflicting purchase prices in the deeds?	The conflicting purchase prices suggested an intent to evade taxes, undermining the government’s revenue collection and violating Alisuag’s duty to uphold the law.
What does it mean for a lawyer to hold client funds “in trust”?	Holding client funds “in trust” means the lawyer must manage the money with utmost care and transparency, using it only for the intended purpose and providing a full accounting when requested.
How does this case affect other lawyers in the Philippines?	This case serves as a reminder to all lawyers about the importance of upholding ethical standards and the consequences of failing to do so, reinforcing the need for honesty, diligence, and fidelity to clients.
What should clients do if they suspect their lawyer is acting unethically?	Clients who suspect unethical behavior should gather evidence, consult with another attorney, and consider filing a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Basiyo v. Alisuag reaffirms the high ethical standards required of lawyers in the Philippines. The ruling sends a clear message that deceit, malpractice, and breaches of trust will not be tolerated within the legal profession. By holding Alisuag accountable for his actions, the Court underscores the importance of maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SUSAN BASIYO, AND ANDREW WILLIAM SIMMONS, COMPLAINANTS, V. ATTY. JOSELITO C. ALISUAG, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 11543, September 26, 2017