Magdaluyo v. Nace

MAGDALUYO v.
NACE (respondent) — living on said land and offered to relocate them to

February 2, 2000 | Quisumbing, J. | Code of Professional Responsibility, another portion of the land.
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 & Canon 10, Rule 10.01
2. However, the squatters refused, and filed a complaint against Magdaluyo
COMPLAINANT: Raymundo T. Magdaluyo before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB).
RESPONDENT: Atty. Enrique L. Nace They claimed to be tenants on Magdaluyo’s land and, thus, could not be
forcibly ejected.
SUMMARY: Respondent Nace was accused of acts amounting to deceit and
3. Almost three months later, the squatters, including Nace, also filed a case
gross misconduct. Complaint Magdaluyo alleged that he is the registered owner
against Magdaluyo before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo for the
of parcels of land situated in Rizal and he offered to relocate the squatters living annulment or cancellation of complainant's land titles. This time, they
on his land. The squatters, however, refused and filed a case before the PARAB, claimed to be owners, not mere tenants, of the land. They traced their
claiming that they are tenants on complainant's land. Almost three months later, alleged ownership to an old Spanish title.
the squatters, including Nace, also filed a case before the RTC for the annulment
of complainant's land titles claiming that they are the owners of the land under 4. DAR: dismissed the squatters' complaint before the PARAB for lack of
the old Spanish title. Both agrarian and civil cases were later dismissed and jurisdiction. At the same time, the civil case was also dismissed for lack
of cause of action.
Magdaluyo filed this complaint against Nace inasmuch as he was a party to both
the agrarian and civil suits. Magdaluyo accused Nace of having deliberately 5. RTC: ruled that the squatters' claim of ownership based on an old
committed a falsehood and of forum-shopping. The Court concurred with the Spanish title could not defeat complainant's claim under a Torrens title.
findings and recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines that Nace
should be reprimanded for his unprofessional and improper acts. There was a 6. Magdaluyo filed this complaint against Nace inasmuch as he
violation of the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility against (respondent) was a party to both the agrarian and civil suits. He accused
Nace of having deliberately committed a falsehood and of forum-
engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
shopping, and prayed that proper disciplinary sanctions be imposed
against him.
DOCTRINE:
Canon 1, Rule 1. 01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
7. On one hand, Nace denied complainant's allegations. He stated that the
or deceitful conduct.”
agrarian case was filed not by him but by a federation of farmers and,
therefore, not his personal responsibility.
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by
8. Nace failed to appear during any of the hearings of the case, which
any artifice.
prompts the complainant to present his evidence ex parte and thereafter
submit the case for resolution.
FACTS: 9. IBP’s Findings:
1. Raymundo Magdaluyo (complainant) alleged that he is the registered - Nace failed to allege in his complaint the fact that a prior dispute
owner of parcels of land situated in Antipolo, Rizal. In 1991, he had been existing between the parties before the PARAB, thus
conducted dialogues with squatters — among them was Nace deceiving the court and giving it an inaccurate appreciation of facts.
Page 1 of 2
- Any lawyer would know that a Spanish title would have no legal leg RULING: The court REPRIMANDED Atty. Enrique L. Nace for his
to stand on in the face of Transfer Certificate of Title over the same misconduct, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall
parcel of land. As such, Nace was delinquent in his duty as a lawyer be more severely dealt with.
to maintain only such suits as appears to him to be just and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable.
10. IBP: recommends that Nace be reprimanded for his unprofessional and
improper acts.
ISSUE/s & RATIO:
1. WoN Nace’s act violates Rule 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility – Yes
Atty. Nace violated the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility

against engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule
1.01), and committing falsehood before the court (Rule 10.01).
• The court concurs with the IBP’s findings and recommendation

which was fully supported by the evidence on record.
• Nace cannot be said in good faith in alleging to be a lawful tenant

one moment, and be an owner thereafter.
• He was, indeed, less than sincere in asserting two conflicting rights

over a portion of land that, in all probability, he knew not to be his.
What made matters worse was his participation in bringing such
claims to court, knowing them to be contradictory and therefore
cannot both be true, though both could be totally false.
• As a lawyer, respondent is bound by his oath to do no falsehood or

consent to its commission and to conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion. The lawyer's
oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for
suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action. Respondent's
acts are clearly in violation of his solemn oath as a lawyer that this
Court will not tolerate
Page 2 of 2

Magdaluyo v. Nace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Magdaluyo v. Nace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magdaluyo v. Nace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MAGDALUYO v.

NACE (respondent) — living on said land and offered to relocate them to

FACTS: 9. IBP’s Findings:

ISSUE/s & RATIO:

Atty. Nace violated the prohibition in the Code of Professional Responsibility

• The court concurs with the IBP’s findings and recommendation

• Nace cannot be said in good faith in alleging to be a lawful tenant

• He was, indeed, less than sincere in asserting two conflicting rights

• As a lawyer, respondent is bound by his oath to do no falsehood or

You might also like