The Supreme Court ruled that lawyers who resort to forcible intrusion onto a property to assert a claim violate their ethical obligations. This decision reinforces that legal professionals must respect the law and legal processes, even when representing clients with property disputes. Such actions undermine public confidence in the legal system and warrant disciplinary measures, highlighting the importance of upholding ethical standards in property disputes.

When Lawyers Cross the Line: The Ortigas Property Dispute

This case revolves around a complaint filed by Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation (OPDC) against Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak for his involvement in the unlawful entry and takeover of their property located in Pasig City. OPDC alleged that Atty. Tumulak, accompanied by security guards, forcibly entered and took control of the property’s entrance and exit, presenting documents related to the estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez as the basis for the claim. The central legal question is whether Atty. Tumulak’s actions violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, which mandate that lawyers uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes.

The complainant, OPDC, asserted that Atty. Tumulak’s actions constituted deceit, dishonesty, and fraud. They argued that as a lawyer, he should have known that his client’s claim to the property was barred by res judicata due to OPDC’s valid Torrens title. In response, Atty. Tumulak denied being present during the entry and claimed that the actions were carried out by a sheriff pursuant to a writ of execution. He also argued that the documents he presented were legitimate records of the intestate proceedings of the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and found Atty. Tumulak to have violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending his suspension from the practice of law for two years, a decision later adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that Atty. Tumulak’s actions were a clear violation of his duties as a lawyer. The Court highlighted several key points in its decision, starting with the fact that Atty. Tumulak should have known that claims based on Spanish titles were no longer valid after February 16, 1976, as per Presidential Decree No. 892. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that it had previously addressed the issue of fraudulent titles arising from the supposed Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez in the case of Evangelista v. Santiago, where a similar modus operandi was used to claim properties across Metro Manila and neighboring provinces.

The Supreme Court quoted from the IBP’s Report and Recommendation, which underscored Atty. Tumulak’s violations:

We enumerate respondent lawyer’s violation of the following rules/principles when he led the forcible intrusion into OPDC office in Pasig City:
a) Atty. Tumulak knew, or ought to know, that property claims based on Spanish title can no longer be cited as legitimate basis for ownership as of 16 February 1976 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 892.

The Court emphasized that Atty. Tumulak, as an experienced lawyer admitted to the Bar in 1971, should have been aware of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Evangelista v. Santiago. This case specifically addressed the issue of fake titles arising from spurious deeds of assignment related to the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. The Court also noted that the deed of assignment in favor of Atty. Tumulak lacked a clear monetary consideration, suggesting it could be treated as a donation subject to applicable taxes, which were not shown to have been paid. Building on this point, the Court stated that a Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally and can only be questioned in a principal action, meaning Atty. Tumulak should have filed an action to annul OPDC’s title instead of resorting to force.

Additionally, the Court found several irregularities in Atty. Tumulak’s actions, including the fact that the court documents were issued by the RTC in Iriga City but affected a property in Pasig City. The Court also questioned why the Sheriff of Manila was enlisted instead of the Sheriff of Pasig. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the fact that the uniformed guards who accompanied the Sheriff took control of OPDC’s offices with force and intimidation. The Supreme Court cited the ruling in Evangelista v. Santiago:

P.D. No. 892 became effective on 16 February 1976. The successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez had only until 14 August 1976 to apply for a Torrens title in their name covering the Subject Property. In the absence of an allegation in petitioners’ Complaint that petitioners predecessors-in-interest complied with P.D. No. 892, then it could be assumed that they failed to do so. Since they failed to comply with P.D. No. 892, then the successors of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez were already enjoined from presenting the Spanish title as proof of their ownership of the Subject Property in registration proceedings.

The Supreme Court made clear that the principle of stare decisis applied, given the similarities between the present case and previous rulings regarding the Spanish title of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. They also pointed to the 2011 ruling in Pascual v. Robles, which affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision setting aside the amended decision rendered in S.P. No. IR-1110 by the RTC, the same decision upon which Atty. Tumulak based his claim. This should have alerted Atty. Tumulak to the illegitimacy of his actions. The Court also scrutinized the deed of assignment itself, questioning its validity and the authority it purported to grant Atty. Tumulak.

Atty. Tumulak’s claim of non-involvement was rejected by the Court, which emphasized that his role as the assignee, with duties including securing the property and initiating steps for its recovery, made him responsible for the actions taken. The Court noted that Atty. Tumulak had been discharging his role as assignee since March 22, 2010, and that the forcible intrusion occurred on November 29, 2012, more than two years later, indicating a coordinated effort. Even if the amended decision were valid, the Court stated that Atty. Tumulak should have pursued the annulment of OPDC’s title instead of resorting to force. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held Atty. Tumulak guilty of misconduct for circumventing existing laws and disregarding settled rulings, breaching his Lawyer’s Oath and violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The relevant provisions state:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

The Court emphasized that every lawyer is expected to respect and abide by the law, promoting public confidence in the legal profession. Therefore, the Court found Atty. Tumulak’s actions in direct contravention of these principles. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Tumulak from the practice of law for two years, sending a clear message that such behavior will not be tolerated.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Atty. Tumulak violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by participating in the forcible intrusion onto OPDC’s property to assert a claim based on a questionable deed of assignment.
What is Presidential Decree No. 892, and why is it relevant?	Presidential Decree No. 892, effective February 16, 1976, discontinued the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law. It declared that Spanish titles not yet covered by Torrens titles are unregistered lands, making them invalid as proof of land ownership.
What was the significance of the Evangelista v. Santiago case?	The Evangelista v. Santiago case addressed the issue of fraudulent titles arising from the Estate of Don Hermogenes Rodriguez. The Supreme Court had already ruled against similar claims based on spurious deeds of assignment from this estate.
Why did the Court question the deed of assignment in favor of Atty. Tumulak?	The Court questioned the deed of assignment because it lacked a clear monetary consideration, suggesting it could be treated as a donation subject to unpaid taxes. Also, the Court found the deed doubtful on its face.
What is the principle of stare decisis, and how did it apply in this case?	Stare decisis is the legal principle that courts should follow precedents set in previous similar cases. The Court applied it because the facts, applicable laws, and issues in this case were substantially the same as those in Evangelista v. Santiago.
Why was Atty. Tumulak held personally responsible despite claiming he wasn’t present during the intrusion?	Atty. Tumulak was held responsible because his role as the assignee, with duties including securing the property, made him accountable for the actions taken to assert the claim, regardless of his physical presence during the intrusion.
What should Atty. Tumulak have done instead of resorting to forcible intrusion?	Instead of forcibly entering the property, Atty. Tumulak should have filed an action to annul OPDC’s title in court, allowing the legal process to determine the validity of his client’s claim.
What specific violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility was Atty. Tumulak found guilty of?	Atty. Tumulak was found guilty of violating Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the law, avoid dishonest conduct, and refrain from activities that defy the law or undermine confidence in the legal system.
What was the disciplinary action taken against Atty. Tumulak?	The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Tumulak from the practice of law for a period of two years, sending a strong message that such unethical behavior will not be tolerated.

This case serves as a reminder to all lawyers that they must uphold the law and respect legal processes, even when zealously representing their clients. Resorting to force or other unlawful means to assert a claim not only violates ethical obligations but also undermines public trust in the legal profession.

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: Ortigas Plaza Development Corporation v. Atty. Eugenio S. Tumulak, A.C. No. 11385, March 14, 2017