Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7 Tan Vs Atty Gumba
7 Tan Vs Atty Gumba
317
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 9000, October 05, 2011 ]
TOMAS P. TAN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA,
RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Tomas P. Tan, Jr.
against respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba for gross unethical conduct.
The facts are as follows.
Complainant, a self-made businessman with a tailoring shop in Naga City, filed a verified
Complaint[1] against respondent, also a resident of Naga City, before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP)-Camarines Sur Chapter. Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3,[2] Rule 139-B of
the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, the said Chapter forwarded the complaint to the IBP
Board of Governors for proper disposition.
Complainant narrated that sometime in August 2000, respondent asked to be lent ?350,000.00.
Respondent assured him that she would pay the principal plus 12% interest per annum after one
year. She likewise offered by way of security a 105-square-meter parcel of land located in Naga
City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2055[3] and registered in her father's
name. Respondent showed complainant a Special Power of Attorney[4] (SPA) executed by
respondent's parents, and verbally assured complainant that she was authorized to sell or
encumber the entire property. Complainant consulted one Atty. Raquel Payte and was assured
that the documents provided by respondent were valid. Thus, complainant agreed to lend money
to respondent. With the help of Atty. Payte, respondent executed in complainant's favor an
"open" Deed of Absolute Sale over the said parcel of land, attaching thereto the SPA.
Complainant was made to believe that if respondent fails to pay the full amount of the loan with
interest on due date, the deed of sale may be registered. Accordingly, he gave the amount of ?
350,000.00 to respondent.
Respondent, however, defaulted on her loan obligation and failed to pay the same despite
complainant's repeated demands. Left with no recourse, complainant went to the Register of
Deeds to register the sale, only to find out that respondent deceived him since the SPA did not
give respondent the power to sell the property but only empowered respondent to mortgage the
property solely to banks. Complainant manifested that he had lent money before to other people
albeit for insignificant amounts, but this was the first time that he extended a loan to a lawyer
and it bore disastrous results. He submitted that respondent committed fraud and deceit or
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows
him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders
him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[13] Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity
of the legal profession. Lawyers are similarly required, under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same
Code, not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.
Here, respondent's actions clearly show that she deceived complainant into lending money to her
through the use of documents and false representations and taking advantage of her education
and complainant's ignorance in legal matters. As manifested by complainant, he would have
never granted the loan to respondent were it not for respondent's misrepresentation that she was
authorized to sell the property and if respondent had not led him to believe that he could register
the "open" deed of sale if she fails to pay the loan.[14] By her misdeed, respondent has eroded not
only complainant's perception of the legal profession but the public's perception as well. Her
actions constitute gross misconduct for which she may be disciplined, following Section 27, Rule
138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, which provides:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. -- A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
xxxx
We further note that after filing a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading,
respondent wantonly disregarded the lawful orders of the IBP-CBD to file her answer and to
appear for the mandatory conferences despite due notice. Respondent should bear in mind that
she must acknowledge the orders of the IBP-CBD in deference to its authority over her as a
member of the IBP.[15]
Complainant now asks that respondent be disbarred. We find, however, that suspension from the
practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent. It is worth stressing that the power to disbar
must be exercised with great caution. Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear
case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an
officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end
desired, disbarment should not be decreed.[16] In this case, the Court finds the penalty of
suspension more appropriate but finds the recommended penalty of suspension for one year too
severe. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that a suspension of six
months is sufficient. After all, suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a
means to protect the public and the legal profession.[17]
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba is found administratively liable for
grave misconduct. She is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS,
effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt
with more severely.
Let notice of this Resolution be spread in respondent's record as an attorney in this Court, and
notice thereof be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
[1]
[2]
[4]
Id. at 7.
[5]
Id. at 10-11.
[6]
[7]
Id. at 72-77.
[8]
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
[10]
[12]
Rollo, p. 71.
De Chavez-Blanco v. Lumasag, Jr., A.C. No. 5195, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 56, 62.
[13]
Roa v. Moreno, A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA 693, 699, citing Ronquillo v. Cezar,
A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 1, 5-6.
[14]
Rollo, p. 17.
[15]
Toledo v. Abalos, A.C. No. 5141, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 419, 422.
[16]
Santiago v. Rafanan, A.C. No. 6252, October 5, 2004, 440 SCRA 91, 101.
[17]
Saburnido v. Madroo, A.C. No. 4497, September 26, 2001, 366 SCRA 1, 7.