JEN BANC

ABNER R . MANGUBAT, A.C. No. 9457

Complainant, (Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ.,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
HERNAN DO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING,
- versus - ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,
MARQUEZ, and
KHO, JJ.

Promulgated:
ATTY. REYNALDO L. HERRERA, April s, 2022
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------z~ ~-----x

DIECISION

PER CURIAM:

1
This administrative case for disbarment arose from a Complaint filed
against respondent Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera (Atty. Herrera) charging him
with violation of several provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility ( CPR) and the Rules of Court.

Rollo, pp. 1-24.

 Decision 2 AC. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

The Antecedents

The complainant, Abner Mangubat (Abner), is one of the heirs of

Aurelia Rellora Mangubat (Aurelia), who in turn, predeceased her husba..rid,
Gaudencio Mangubat (Gaudencio). The other heirs of Aurelia are: (1)
Elizabeth M. Bragais (Elizabeth); (2) Ruth M. Pacia (Ruth); (3) Josue
Mangubat (Josue); (4) Ester j\![_ Agna (Ester); (5) Job Mangubat (Job); and
(6) Raquel M. Azada (Raquel).

It was alleged in the complaint of Abner that in May 1998, Gaudencio

engaged the services of Atty. Herrera to institute a complaint for revival of
judgment involving a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 63372 against
Orlando Seva (Orlando) and Belen Morga-Seva (Belen) and the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) docketed as Civil Case No. P-
2145. In the complaint,3 Gaudencio was identified as the complainant
together with the "Heirs of Aurelia represented by Raquel Azada (Raquel)."
Atty. Herrera enumerated the heirs of Aurelia and stated that Raquel joined
the Complaint "for herself and as attorney-in-fact of her co-plaintiffs." 4
Abner was also listed as a co-plaintiff. The complaint sought the revival of
Civil Case no. P-279. Atty. Herrera admitted that the engagement was only
at the instance of Gaudencio, in the form of a verbal agreement, and that the
latter undertook to secure the special power of attorney (SPA) from his
children. However, no SPA was presented to the trial court. 5

On February 22, 2001, a Compromise Agreement6 was executed

between Gaudencio, represented by Atty. Herrera, Belen, and the counsel for
the DBP. Belen agreed to pay the amount of P72,600.00 plus P5,000.00 as
attorney's fees in exchange for the transfer ofTCT No. 6337 in her favor on
or before June 3 0, 2001. 7 After the compromise agreement was approved by
the court, 8 Atty. Herrera filed a motion for execution. 9 The motion was
granted and a writ of execution was issued on October 5, 2001. 10 The sheriff
reported that on January 18, February 20, March 18, May 6, and June 3, all
in 2002, he went to the house of Belen but failed to execute the judgment as
she was not there. 11

Incidentally, on January 31, 2002, Gaudencio died. 12 Abner went to

the office of Atty. Herrera to discuss the possibility of nullifying the long
overdue compromise agreement and to inform him of his father's demise. 13
2 Id. at 303-304.
!d. at 27-30.
4
Id. at 27-28.
Id. at 32.
Id. at 3 I.
7
Id.
Id. at 34.
9 Id at 35.
JO Id. at 36-37.
II Id. at 39.
12 Id. at 38.
13 Id. at 6-7.
o>r./
 Decision 3 A.C. No. 9457
(Fonnerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Subsequently, Abner hired Atty. Haide Gumba (Atty. Gumba) to

represent him in the subject case. 14 On September 10, 2002, Atty. Gumba
filed a motion to substitute Gaudencio with Abner and prayed that the sheriff
be ordered to explain why no return has been made. 15 The trial court
eventually granted the substitution. 16

On October 30, 2002, Atty. Herrera filed an "Ex-Parte Manifestation

with Motion to Hold in Custody of the Court the Award in this Case Pending
the Settlement of Estate of the Late Gaudencio Mangubat." 17 He prayed that
the listed heirs be appointed as substitute plaintiffs, and that the award in the
decision, once paid by the Sevas, be deposited to the clerk of court, and
released to the heirs of Gaudencio. 18

Abner, however, claimed that Atty. Herrera did not secure any
authority from the heirs when he filed the motion and manifestation and
even omitted Job in the enumeration of heirs. 19 Nevertheless, the trial court
granted it. 20

On December 18, 2003, two years and two months after the writ of
execution was issued, Atty. Herrera filed a Compliance21 stating that he
received P91,280.00 22 from Belen's son. 23 On even date, a deed of
conditional sale Atty. Herrera drafted was executed between one Silvestre
Seva, Jr. (Silvestre), who claimed to be the attorney-in-fact of Belen, and the
Spouses Ricardo and Rosemarie Biag (Spouses Biag) involving 600 square
meters of the 16,320 square meters covered by TCT No. 6337. 24 Atty.
Herrera notarized the deed of conditional sale. However, it was only on April
7, 2005, or one year and four months after Atty. Herrera received the money
that he deposited it with the clerk of court. 25

On December 17, 2004, Atty. Herrera filed an "Ex-Parte Motion to

Designate the Clerk of Court to Draft and Execute the Deed of Sale or
Conveyance in Favor of the Defendants." 26 Noticeably, this pleading was
filed before the judgment award was actually deposited with the clerk of

14
Id. at 7.
15
Id. at 40--41.
16
Id. at 42.
17
Id. at 43--44.
18 Id. at 44.
19 Id. at 8, 351.
20 Order dated November 13, 2002. Penned by Acting Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon; id. at 153.
21 Id. at 47-48.
22 Id. at 49. The amount is computed as follows:
1"72,600.00 Principal off'33,000.00 pius interest of 12% since August 1990 to 2000.
11,880.00 Interest earned for 3 years (2000-2003)
5,000.00 Attorney's fees
1 800.00 Interest earned for 3 years
1"91,280.00
23 Rollo, pp. 155-156.
24 Id. at 57, 61, 67-68.
25
Id at 50.
26 Id. at 63-64.
 Decision 4 A.C. No. 9457
(Fonnerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

court on April 7, 2005. 1n an Order2 7 dated January 17, 2005, the trial court
granted the motion of Atty. Herrera. This prompted Belen to file a case
against Abner to compel him to surrender th.e owner's duplicate copy ofTCT
No. 6337. 28

On the part of Atty. Herrera, he claimed that Abner filed a complaint

against him, as a form of retaliation. Atty. Herrera raised the estranged
relationship between Abner and Gaudencio and the Decision dated
September 19, 2001 of the probate court in Special Proceedings No. P-984
disinheriting Abner from the estate of Gaudencio. 29 He also questioned the
motive of Abner in filing the motion for substitution without including his
siblings, implying that Abner intended to keep all the monetary award for
himself 30 Atty. Herrera nonetheless admitted filing pleadings for Gaudencio
long after his death. He, however, insisted that after he received the money
from Belen's son, he notified Elizabeth, Esther, Josue, and Raquel, but none
of them claimed their respective shares. 31 He posited that th.e heirs could
receive their respective shares provided that they turn over· the owner's
duplicate copy ofTCT No. 6337. 32

Atty. Herrera also maintained that there was no conflict of interest

when he drafted and notarized the deed of conditional sale for Silvestre. He
pointed out that: (1) the subject of the conditional sale does not belong to
Gaudencio anymore pursuant to the Decision in Civil Case No. P-279 on
August 27, 1985, the judgment sought to be revived in Civil Case No. P-
2145; (2) the Compr-0mise Agreement was executed by the parties; and (3)
· Belen voluntarily paid the award, thus terminating the case along with their
client-counsel relationship. 33

Report and Recommendation of the IBP

On January 20, 2014, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Commissioner Victor Pablo C. Trinidad (Investigating Commissioner) made
the following recommendations:

A. For Violation of Canm:1 5 involving the Dulty to Keep Abreast of

Legal Development - the Conunissioner finds the respondent
GUILTY as charged and recommends that he be penalized with
DISBARMENT, in accordance with Section 4.51 of the IBP-CBD
Guidelines for imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter, "CBD
Guidelines");

27
Order dated January I7, 2005. Penned by Presiding Judge Jose C. Arcilla; id. al 65-66.
28
Id. at 72.-73.
29
id. at 70; 91; 110; 127.
30
Id. at 89; 100.
31
Id. at 69-70; 157-160.
32. Id. at 90;. 100.
Id. at 108-11 l; 360.
 Decision 5 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

B. For Violation of Rnle HUH involving the Duty of Fidlelity to the

Courts - the Commissioner finds the respondent GUILTY as charged
and recommends that he be penalized with DISBARMENT, m
accordance with Section 6.11 of the CBD Guidelines;

[C.J For Violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court by "willfolly appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so." - the Commissioner finds the
respondent GUILTY as charged and recommends that he be penalized
with JDISBAR.lWENT in accordance with the Rules;

[D. l For Violation of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court
involving the duty of counsel to x x x to inform the court of the death
of his client - the Commissioner finds the respondent GUILTY and
recommends that he be penalized in accordance with the Rules;

E. For Violation of Rule 15.03 involving the Duty to Avoid Conflict of

Interest - the Commissioner finds the respondent GUILTY as
charged and recommends that he be penalized with DISBARMENT,
in accordance with Section 4.31 (D) of the CBD Guidelines;

F. For Violation of Canon 16 involving the Duty to he a Trustee of

Client's Moneys and Piroperties; Rufo 16.!H Duty of
Accountability; and! Rule 16JJ2 Duty not to Commingle Funds and
Piroperties - the Commissioner finds the respondent GUILTY as
charged and recommends that he be penalized with DISBARMENT,
in accordance with Sections 4.11 of the CBD Guidelines; and

G. For Violation of Canon 18 involving the Duty to serve with Due

Diligence; Rule 18.03 l)uty not to be Negligent; and Rule 18.04
Duty to keep Client informed - the Commissioner finds the
respondent GUILTY as charged and recommends that he be penalized
with DISBARMENT, in accordance with Sections 4.41 (c) of the
CBD Guidelines.

The commissioner finds the presence of: (i) pattern of misconduct; (ii)
multiple offenses (ii) [sic] refusal to acknowledge wrongful the nature of
conduct; (iv) vulnerability of the victims who are senior citizens; and (v)
the substantial experience of the respondent in the practice of law (Roll
No. 28561), as AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE and recommends
that the same be considered for the imposition of penalty based on the
charges. 34

The Investigating Commissioner found that the following acts of Atty.

Herrera warrant the imposition of the supreme penalty of disbarment: (1)
indicating that the heirs of Aurelia were represented in the suit by Raquel
when it was not true; (2) failing to timely infonn the court about the death of
Gaudencio; (3) filing of pleadings in court without authority and despite the
objections of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio; (4) failing to immediately
remit the money he collected to the clerk of court or to the heirs; and (5)
moving for the surrender of the owner's duplicate title and drafting and
notarizing the deed of conditional sale in favor of a party whose interest is in
conflict with that of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio.
34
Id. at 462-464. (Emphases in the original; citations omitted)
 Decision 6 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors

In Resolution No. XXI-2014-792 35 dated October 11, 2014, the IBP

Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner with modification, the pertinent portion of
which states:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and

APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution as Annex "A"; and for violation of Canon 5, Rule JO.OJ,
Rule 15.03, Canon 16, Rule 16.02, Canon 18, Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, Section 27, Rule 138 and Section 16,
Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years. 36

In Resolution No. XXII-2015-68 37 dated October 28, 2015, the IBP

Board of Governors denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Herrera
and affirmed the Resolution No. XXI-2014-792, suspending him from the
practice of law for three years. 38

,Issues.

I.
Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for
indicating that the heirs of Am'elia were represented by Raquel
in the complaint for revival of judgment when it was not true;

IL
Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively fiable for
his failure to timely inform the court about Gaudencio's death;

HI.
Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for
filing pleadings in court without authority and despite the
. objections of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio;

JV.
Whether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for
failing to promptly account for the funds he received as a result
of the Compromise Agreement; and

" Id. at 438-439.

36
ld. at 438. (Emphasis and italics in the original)
37
Id. at 437.
38
Id.
- lp/
CV
 Decision 7 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

V.
Vv'hether Atty. Herrera must be held administratively liable for
failing to observe the rule on conflict of interest.

Our Ruling

After a judicious review of the records of the case, We resolve to

modify the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors and
impose the more serious penalty of disbarment from the practice of law. We
find that the repeated and brazen acts committed by Atty. Herrera violates
the CPR, Canons of Professional Ethics (CPE), and the Rules of Court. His
acts reveal his proclivity to commit unethical and dishonest practices to the
detriment of the legal profession.

Atry. Herrera must be held

administratively liable for indicating
that the heirs of Aurelia were
represented by Raquel in the
complaint for revival of judgment
when it was not true.

As correctly determined by the Investigating Commissioner, Atty.

Herrera failed to secure the consent and authority of all the heirs of Aurelia
and committed falsehood by indicating in the pleadings that Raquel
represented them when, in truth, she did not. He did not attach the
corresponding SPA to substantiate the capacity of Raquel as a representative
and merely relied on Gaudencio's purported commitment to provide him one
at a later time. 39

Atty. Herrera cannot simply rely on Gaudencio's promise to secure the

requisite SPA from the other heirs at a later time. As a lawyer, he should
have ]mown the required documents to be attached in the pleadings to be
submitted to the trial court. Thus, Atty. Herrera misled the trial court by
stating in his pleadings "Heirs of Aurelia Rellora Mangubat represented by
Raquel Azada" when no such SPA accompanied the complaint, more so,
with Raquel denying the purported representation. Further, Elizabeth and
Abner also denied any participation in the complaint.

Even if Abner was disinherited from the estate of Gaudencio through

a court judgment, this does not negate the fact that at the time the complaint
for revival of judgment was instituted, he should have been impleaded and
his consent should have been obtained. This must be so because the
Decision40 on the disinheritance of Abner was promulgated three years and
four months after the complaint for revival of judgment was filed.
39
Id. at 348-350
40
Id. at 113-127.
 Decision 8 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Assuming arguendo that Gaudencio instructed Atty. Herrera not to

implead Abner due to their estranged relationship, he could still not be
exonerated from any liability. Rule 19.03 of the CPR commands tbat "[a]
lawyer shall not allow his/her client to dictate the procedure in handling the
case." Being the counsel on record, Atty. Herrera is expected to be
knowledgeable about substantive law and procedural rules and should not
merely accede to tbe instructions of his client. After all, "a lawyer shall keep
abreast of legal developments" as mandated by Canon 5 of the CPR.

Atty. Herrera must !be held

administratively liable for his failure
to timely inform the court about
Gaudencio 's death.

Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court states:

SECTION 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a

pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be
the duty of his counsel to irifori:n the court within thirty (30) days after
such death of the fact thereof, and give the name and. address of his legal
. representative or repre~entatives. •

Failure of counsel to comply with this duty shall be a ground for

disciplinary action:

XXX.

Atty. Herrera failed to promptly infonn the court about the death of
Gaudencio who died on January 31, 2002. 41 Noticeably, it was the counsel
of Abner, Atty. Gumba, who first informed the court about Gaudencio's
death through the "Motion to Substitute Plaintiff Gaudencio Mangubat and
to Require the Provincial Sherflf to make Return of Execution" 42 that she
filed on September 10, 2002. It was only on October 30, 2002, or
approximately nine months from the date of death of Gaudencio, tbat Atty.
Herrera reported his death to the trial court. 43

AtQJ. Herrera must . be held

administratively liable for _filing
pleadings in court without authority
and despite the objections of i!he
heirs ofAurelil, and Gaudencio.

As a consequence of Atty. Herrera's failure to secure tbe proper

authorization to represent the other heirs of Aurelia, and the subsequent
death of Gaudencio, he cannot be said to have been equipped with authority

41
id. at 38.
42
Id at40-41.
43
Id. at43-44.
 Decision 9 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

to file pleadings in their behalf. He thus also violated Section 27, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court which states:

SECTION 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what

grounds. - A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for x x x corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do
44
SO.XX x

Here, Atty. Herrera continued to render legal services and represented

Gaudencio and the heirs of Aurelia in entering into a compromise agreement
without the requisite authorization. His blatant disregard of the rules on
representation of parties in civil cases is revealed in the following
exchanges:

COMM. TRINIDAD:
Did you not find it irregular that you signed the Compromise Agreement
without the conformity of the other heirs of Aurelia?

ATTY. HERRERA:
I cannot say, Your Honor, because I just rely on the manifestations of the
father [Gaudencio] that he will take [care of] everything for his children.

COMM. TRINIDAD:
Yes, counsel, but we know for a fact that these are compulsory heirs of the
deceased Aurelia. So any document representing their ownership over any
property must include them. And it's up to you to give the legal advise
[sic] to the father.

ATTY. HERRERA:
I did not see too much important [sic] on that, Your Honor, because this is
just a revival of judgment.

COMM. TRINIDAD:
But this is a Compromise Agreement. It will bind them. How it can [sic]
bind them if they did not agree? And now we have three heirs assailing
that Compromise Agreement already. Your manifestation was on [sic] the
death of Gaudencio was October 30, 2002, meaning the heirs. You omitted
one of the heirs, not only Abner but Job.

ATTY. HERRERA:
Because he was then abroad, Your Honor. 45

It is clear from the foregoing that Atty. Herrera simply brushed aside
the absence of authority to represent the heirs of Aurelia as he did not
consider this important, although property rights of the heirs are at stake. It
must be clarified that while Gaudencio may bind himself to the compromise
agreement through counsel, the same cannot be said about the other heirs of
Aurelia who did not give him authority to act on their behalf

44 Emphasis supplied, italics in the original.

45 Id. at 350-351.
 Decision IO AC. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Incidentally, it is worthy to point out that it was improper for the

Investigating Commissioner to rule on the validity of the compromise
agreement entered into by Atty. Herrera for the heirs of Aurelia in his Report
and Recommendation. 46 In this case, Our discussion is limited only to the
administrative liability of Atty. Herrera for the acts complained against him.
We will refrain from ruling on other substantive issues that should be
properly addressed in a full-blown trial.

Atty. Herrera's unauthorized representation was compounded when he

continued to represent Gaudencio after his death, without his services being
retained by the heirs.- Upon Gaudencio's death, his attorney-client
relationship with Atty. HeITera was terminated. Since he was not retained by
the remaining heirs of Gaudencio and Aurelia, he misled the trial court
and breached his duty under Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the CPR which
prohibits committing "any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any m
Court; nor xx x mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice."

Atry. Herren, must be . held

administratively liable ·for failing to
promptly account for the. funds he
received as a result of the ·
Compromise Agreement.

Atty. Herrera likewise violated Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of

Court when he collected the proceeds of the Compromise Agreement in
favor of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio without authority, and took an
unreasonably long time before he turned it over to the clerk of court. Section
9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states:

SECTION 9. Execution of judgments for money, how enforced. -

(a) Immediate payment on demand. - The officer shall enforce an
execution of a judgment for money by demanding from the judgment
obligor the immediate payment of the full amount stated in the writ of
execution and all lawful fees. The judgment obligor shall pay in cash,
certified bank check payable to the judgment obligee, or any other fom1
of pay1nent acceptable to the latter, t11e amount of the judgment debt
under proper receipt directly to the judgment obligee or his authorized
representative if present at the time of payment. The lawful fees shall
he handed u11.deir piropeir receipt to the executillllg sheriff who shall
ru.irn oveir the s·aid 2mo1mJ: within the same day to the clerk of court
of foe couirt th2t issued the writ.

xxxx

The clerk of said court shall thereafter arrange for the remittance of the
deposit to _the account of the comi that issued the writ whose clerk of
court shall then deliver said paynient to the judgment obligee in
satisfaction of the judgment. The excess, if any, shall be delivered to the

46 Id. at 153-454.
 Decision 11 A.C. No. 9457
(Fonner!y CBD Case No. 13-3883)

judgment obligor while the lawful fees shall be retained by the clerk of
court for disposition as provided by law. In no case shall the executing
sheriff demand that any payment by check be made payable to him. 47

xxxx

In handling money or property belonging to clients, lawyers are

reminded of their responsibility under Canon 11 of the CPE and Rule 16.02,
Canon 16 of the CPR. Canon 11 of the CPE states:

Canon 11. Dealing with trust property

The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his
personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence
reposed in him by his client.

Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property
coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and
accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be
commingled with his own or be used by him.

Meanwhile, Rule 16.02 of the CPR mandates that a "lawyer shall keep
the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others
kept by him.

It must be recalled that the Compromise Agreement was approved by

the trial court on February 23, 2001, while Atty. Herrera filed a motion for
execution48 on September 5, 2001. The motion was later granted on
September 20, 2001. Then on December 18, 2003, or almost two years and
three months from the issuance of the writ of execution when he, knowing
fully well that his lawyer-client relationship with Gaudencio had already
ceased due to the latter's death (on January 31, 2002), filed a "Compliance"
and informed the trial court that he received P91,280.00. 49

Assuming that Atty. Herrera was authorized to receive the proceeds of

the compromise agreement for the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio, he should
have given it to the executing sheriff who shall then tum it over within the
same day to the clerk of the court that issued the writ, in accordance with
Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. However, Atty. Herrera deposited
the amount of f'84,480.00 50 with the clerk of court only on April 7, 2005, or

47
Emphases supplied. italics in the original.
48
Rollo, at 35.
49
Id. at 47,458.
50
Id. at 50 and 95.
The amount is computed as follows:
1'72,600.00 Principal of ¥33,000.00 plus interest of 12% since August 1990 to 2000.
11,880.00 Interest earned for 3 years (2000-2003)
(5,000.00) LESS: Attorney's fees
(1,800.00) LESS: Interest earned for 3 years
1'84,480.00
 Decision 12 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

approximately one year and four months after he received the money. 51
Moreover, he did not inform Abner and Job about receiving the money and
merely kept it at his office. 52

Atry. Herrera must be held

administratively liable for failing to
observe the rule on conflict of
interest when he moved for the
surrender of the owner's duplicate
title and drafted the deed of
conditional sale in favor of a party
whose interest is in conflict with the
interest of the heirs of Aurelia and
Gaudencio.

Rule 15.03 of the CPR states:

A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written

consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Atty. Herrera violated the aforementioned rule on conflict of interest

when he drafted and notarized a deed of conditional sale between Silvestre,
in representation of Orlando and Belen Seva, and the Spouses Biag tor a
portion of the land covered by TCT No. 6337.

Further, Atty. Herrera also filed an ex-parte motion to designate the

clerk of court to draft the deed of sale or conveyance in favor of the Sevas.53
A cursory reading of Atty. Herrera's ex-parte motion reveals that while he
presented himself as "Counsel for the Plaintiff," he was, in truth, advocating
for the interest of the opposing party, as revealed in the following
statements:

xxxx

2. That the defendant's [sic] heirs failed and refused to execute a Deed of
Conveyance or Deed of Sale to the defendants, despite of [sic] counsel
letter sent to the beirs x x x;

3. That likewise the plaintiffs['] heirs failed and refused to tum over the
owner's copy ofTCT No. 6337 issued to Gaudencio Mangubat hence
the undersigned counsei could not have the said title reconstituted and
transfered [sic] to the defendants. 54

XXX

51
Rollo, pp. 48-50; 458.
52
Id. at 353.
53 Id. at 63-64.
54
Id. at 63.
 Decision 13 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

This conduct prejudiced Abner because it prompted Spouses Biag to

file a petition against him to compel him to surrender the owner's duplicate
copy of TCT No. 6337. It is the counsel of the Sevas who should have
moved for the surrender of the owner's duplicate copy of the title and not
Atty. Herrera because he originally represented the interest of the heirs of
Aurelia and Gaudencio, albeit without authority from some of the heirs. The
interest of the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio precludes him from
representing the adverse interest of the Sevas.

A Final Note

In sum, Atty. Herrera committed the following acts: (1) indicating that
the heirs of Aurelia were represented in the suit by Raquel when it was not
true; (2) failing to timely inform the court about the death of Gaudencio; (3)
filing pleadings in court without authority and despite the objections of the
heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio; ( 4) failing to immediately remit the money
he collected to the clerk of court or to the heirs; (5) moving for the surrender
of the owner's duplicate title and drafting and notarizing the deed of
conditional sale in favor of a party whose interest is in conflict with that of
the heirs of Aurelia and Gaudencio. The seriousness and gravity of these
infractions cannot be denied.

It is the paramount interest of this Court to ensure that only those who
possess and carry out the core values and exacting standards established to
preserve the honor and integrity of the Bar are allowed to practice law. In
this case, the collective conduct of Atty. Herrera tarnishes the integrity of the
legal profession and is in clear disregard of his sworn duties in the Lawyer's
Oath not to "delay any man's cause for money or malice" and to conduct
himself "as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients."

Indeed, restraint must be exercised before imposing the supreme

penalty of disbarment that should be reserved only for the most serious
and reprehensible acts. In Canillo v. Angeles, 55 We meted the penalty of
disbarment on the erring lawyer who was found to have represented
conflicting interests involving a common parcel of land and for committing
other fraudulent and deceitful acts. Similarly, in Laurel v_ Delute, 56 the
erring lawyer was disbarred for selling out his client's cause in order to gain
personal benefit. In both cases, We determined that the acts the erring
lawyers committed rendered them unfit to continue practicing law. Atty.
Herrera's collective acts are graver than in these cases.

We cannot tum a blind eye to Atty. Herrera's repeated and brazen

disregard of the provisions of the CPR, CPE, Rules of Court, and the

55 839 Phil. 494(2018).

" A.C. No. 12298, September I, 2020.
. -

Decision 14 A.C. No. 9457

(Fonnerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

Lawyer's Oath that shows his indifference to the values a lawyer ought to
live by for his continued membership in the Bar. Atty. Herrera has been a
lawyer for over 43 years already. 57 At this stage of his professional career,
he is expected to have a profound understanding of the duties expected of
him and should demonstrate the moral fitness and probity demanded from
every member of the Bar. Accordingly, We impose the penalty of
disbannent.

In view of the foregoing, We modify Resolution No. XXII-2015-68 of

the IBP Board of Governors by imposing the more serious penalty of
disbarment from the practice of law on Atty. Herrera for violating the
following: Canons 1, 5, 10, 15, 16 and 19 of the CPR; Canon 11 of the CPE;
and Section 16, Rule 3, and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines Board of Governors dated October 11, 2014 and October 28,
2015 in Administrative Case No. 9457 are MODIFIED.

Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera is DISBARRED from the practice of law

and his name is ORDERED stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Court

Administrator for dissemination to all courts, the Office of the Bar
Confidant, and the IBP for their information and guidance. The Office of the
Bar Confidant is DIRECTED to append a copy of this Decision to Atty.
Herrera's personal record.

SO ORDERED.

57
Atty. Herrera was admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 21, 1978 (Roll No. 2856 I).
Decision 15 A.C. No. 9457
(Formerly CBD Case No. 13-3883)

/
AM IAZARO-JAVIER H E N ~ B . INTING
Associate Justice Associa~!tice

A~DA
e Justice

~
~MUELH.GAiln.AN
Associate Justice
RICAR R. ROSARIO

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice

. ,~~itv .Ai~,d 1), J. 011')/z;;

~tJJc:d..U ~ ~
(Josk MIDAS P. ~RQUEZ ,,.,.,.....--~&i~
~ Associate Justice Associate Justice