TRIA-SAMONTE vs. OBIASA.C. No. 4945October 8, 2013

Facts: Sometime in 1997, the spouses Nestor and Pura Tria hired Atty. Fanny Obias in a package arrangement for a parcel of land they had bought for P2.8 million: to get the full consideration and deliver it to the sellers, to get the title and secure the execution of the deed of sale, to pay all the taxes and other expenses, to transfer the title to the name of the buyers, and to work for the conversion of the land from agricultural to residential.Fanny got the money and the necessary documents. However, after some time, and despite repeated follow-ups, Fanny failed to comply with her undertakings. Meantime, Nestor died and his daughter Jennifer, the complainant, took over. She discovered that Fanny had notarized a deed of sale with a consideration of P200,000.00 over the same land in favor of somebody. Jennifer filed an administrative complaint against fanny for grave misconduct and/or gross malpractice with the Supreme Court. In defence, Fanny argued that Nestor instructed her not proceed with the sale and instead to look for another buyer. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1999.In 2007, the IBP Investigating Commissioner then issued a Report found that Fanny violated her oath her oath as a lawyer because she participated in the second sale of the subject property despite the lack of any lawful termination of the prior sale of the same property to the Spouses Tria. He recommended that Fanny be suspended from the practice of law for a period of 5 years.

Issue:Should respondent be held administratively liable for violating Canons 17 and 18 of the Code?

Ruling:The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the IBP but increased the penalty. Fanny was disbarred from the practice of law.Citing Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court held that the core ethical principle that lawyers owe fidelity to their clients cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. They are duty-bound to observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients. The Supreme Court found that Fanny transgressed (these) rules as her actions were evidently prejudicial to her clients interests. Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property to her clients, she willfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person. Accordingly, far removed from protecting the interest of her clients, Sps. Tria, who had in fact, already fully paid the purchase price of the subject property, respondent (Fanny) participated and was even instrumental in bringing about the defeat of their rights over the said property.Lest it be forgotten, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. These unyielding standards respondent (Fanny) evidently failed to adhere to.