THIRD DIVISION

[A.C. No. 9838. June 10, 2019.]

PAZ C. SANIDAD , complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSEPH JOHN GERALD M.

AGUAS , respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Before us is a Complaint for Disbarment 1 dated December 8, 2012, led by

complainant Paz C. Sanidad (Sanidad) against respondent Atty. Joseph John Gerald M.
A g u a s (respondent) for dishonesty, grossly deceitful conduct, malpractice, and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Sometime in 2001, Sanidad alleged that she and respondent, together with the
latter's brother, Julius M. Aguas (Julius), entered into a verbal agreement for the sale of
the co-owned subject property of the latter located at No. 2 Gonzales Drive, Doña Pilar
Subdivision, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. They agreed that the subject property will be
sold for P1,500,000.00 and to be paid in installments. Sanidad averred that she has
been residing in the said subject property since 1983.
Thus, from 2001 to 2011, Sanidad claimed that she has made several payments
to respondent and Julius by depositing in their BPI bank accounts. Sanidad also alleged
that while she has been depositing payments in their bank accounts, no
acknowledgment receipt was ever issued to her. She, however, maintained that she has
deposited a total payment of One Million One Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P1,152,000.00) on respondent's and Julius's BPI bank accounts, as evidenced by the
deposit slips as proof of payments, to wit:
(1) February 15, 2001 — Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00); 2
(2) May 8, 2001 — Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00); 3
(3) May 15, 2001 — Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00); 4
(4) June 1, 2001 — Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); 5
(5) August 1, 2001 — Ninety Thousand Pesos (P90,000.00); 6
(6) Undated deposit of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos (P45,000.00); 7
(7) April 5, 2002 — Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); 8
(8) October 7, 2010 — Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00); 9
(9) October 14, 2010 — Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00); 1 0
(10) August 5, 2011 — Two Hundred Two Thousand Pesos (P202,000.00). 1 1
However, Sanidad lamented that respondent took advantage of his legal
knowledge as a lawyer and employed several tactics to defraud her. She claimed that
respondent, after receiving the total amount of P1,152,000.00 from her, sent her
demand letters and threatened her with eviction. 1 2 She added that after she deposited
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 her payments in respondent's bank account, the latter also avoided meeting her and
became unreachable. Sanidad averred that she would receive telephone calls from him
pressuring her to immediately vacate the property or she will be evicted.CAIHTE

Feeling aggrieved, Sanidad led the instant disbarment complaint against

respondent.
In a Resolution 1 3 dated June 19, 2013, the Court required respondent to
comment on the allegations against him.
In his Comment 1 4 dated August 13, 2013, respondent alleged that Sanidad's
allegations are bereft of factual basis. He averred that Sanidad has been a tenant of the
subject property since 1980 whose lease had long lapsed and is facing eviction for
non-payment of rentals. He further asserted that Sanidad's occupation of the subject
property was by mere tolerance, and because her eviction from the subject property
was imminent, she allegedly fabricated lies against him.
Respondent also claimed that the instant disbarment case, along with a civil and
criminal complaint against him and his brother, to wit: (1) Action for Speci c
Performance and Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-1271807, entitled Paz C.
Sanidad v. Atty. Joseph M. Aguas and Julius Aguas , led on August 17, 2012 before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224; and (2) Complaint for Estafa docketed
as XV-03-13B-01953 led on February 14, 2013 before the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City, were all meant to merely harass him.
Respondent further explained that from 2001 until October 2010, Sanidad merely
paid P5,468.75 as rentals. He claimed that it was only in 2010 that they agreed on the
sale of the subject property for an amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,500,000.00) but Sanidad failed to pay the said amount, thus, she was given an
eviction notice. Respondent maintained that all of Sanidad's payments made between
2001 to 2010 were just payment for the rental of the subject property.
On December 11, 2013, the Court resolved to refer the instant case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. 1 5
In compliance, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar
Discipline (IBP-CBD) issued a Notice of Mandatory Conference 1 6 dated May 19, 2014
which required the parties to appear on June 23, 2014 and submit their respective
mandatory conference briefs.
On June 23, 2014, the mandatory conference was conducted but only Atty.
Manuel N. Camacho who is representing Sanidad appeared.
In his Conference Brief dated July 18, 2014, respondent, however, manifested
that he and Sanidad mutually agreed to amicably settle which resulted to the dismissal
of the civil case which the latter led against him. He added that he had already turned
over the title of the subject property to Sanidad even without receiving a single centavo
as payment. He submitted a photocopy of the acknowledgment receipt signed by
Sanidad's counsel which showed that the latter already received the (1) absolute deed
of sale of the subject real property; (2) motion to withdraw IBP case (Aguas v.
Camacho); (3) Compromise Agreement with Joint Motion to Dismiss (Br. 224, RTC QC)
and (4) the Owner's Duplicate Certi cate of Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 48029.
However, respondent lamented that while he agreed to amicably settle because he was
of the understanding that all the cases led against him would be dismissed, only the
civil case was dismissed. Finally, respondent maintained that he did not abuse or took
advantage of his position as a lawyer in his dealings with complainant.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 In its Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2015, the IBP-CBD found
respondent to have indeed used his legal knowledge to defraud and mislead Sanidad
by sending her demand letters to vacate the subject property despite the sale of the
same and payments made to him. The IBP-CBD recommended that respondent be
given a warning that any repetition of the same will be dealt with severely.
In a Resolution 1 7 dated June 20, 2015, the Board of Governors of the IBP,
however, reversed and set aside the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD and
instead, recommended that respondent be admonished with a warning that repetition
of similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
RULING
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by
substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been
de ned as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against
the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 1 8
In the instant case, We nd that the charges of Sanidad against respondent to be
worthy of belief based on the following:
First, we nd substantial evidence that Sanidad indeed entered into a contract of
sale, albeit verbal, with respondent by showing proof of payments made to the latter.
She presented copies of bank deposit slips as evidence that she has been depositing
her payments for the sale of the subject property under the BPI bank accounts of
respondent and Julius; DETACa

Second, as observed by the IBP, respondent's allegations that the payments

were for rentals and his denial of the existence of the contract of sale between him and
Sanidad fail to convince considering that the amounts of deposits made by Sanidad in
respondent's and Julius's bank account were too substantial to be regarded as
payments of rentals.
Third, respondent's allegation that it was only on August 17, 2010 when he
entered into a contract of sale of the subject real property with Sanidad which allegedly
the latter was not able to pay for, is hard to believe considering that the deposit of
substantial amounts in his account and Julius's began as early as 2001;
Fourth, despite the receipt of payments from Sanidad, respondent apparently
used his legal knowledge when he sent a demand letter dated April 10, 2012 to vacate
the subject property;
Finally, but equally important, we note that while respondent denied that he
entered into a contract of sale with Sanidad, records show that he eventually decided to
turn over the title of the subject property to Sanidad based on a settlement agreement
that the cases led against him will be withdrawn. Clearly, this act of respondent is
inconsistent with his claim that Sanidad's payments were for rentals, and that no
payment was actually made for the sale of the property.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." It is well established that a lawyer's
conduct is "not confined to the performance of his professional duties. 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." 1 9
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in
de ance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful" conduct does
not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the concept is broad enough
to include such element. To be "dishonest" means the disposition to lie, cheat,
deceive, defraud or betray; be unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity,
integrity in principle, fairness and straightforwardness while conduct that is
"deceitful" means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, arti ce
or device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice
and damage of the party imposed upon. 2 0
From the foregoing, we nd respondent's conduct in dealing with Sanidad to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and fairness. While we cannot conclude
that respondent indeed entered into a verbal contract for the sale of a real property
despite knowledge that said verbal contract is unenforceable due to lack of clear
evidence, it is, however, apparent due to the fact that he eventually agreed to surrender
the title of the subject property to Sanidad, that he has certainly entered into a contract
of sale of the subject property with Sanidad for which he received payments. Why else
would he turn over the subject property to Sanidad if there was neither an agreement to
sell nor payments made therefor? Respondent's claim that he decided to turn over the
title of the subject property to Sanidad without receiving a single centavo is outright
outrageous to deserve any credibility.
Moreover, respondent never denied that he received the deposits made by
Sanidad, but he never issued her any acknowledgment receipts. He claimed that
Sanidad has been their tenant since 1983 yet no contract of lease was ever presented
to support his claim. It, thus, appears that while respondent pro ted from receiving
substantial amounts of money from Sanidad, the latter, however, holds no concrete
proof that he has been actually receiving her payments. The interest of Sanidad, as
buyer or lessee, as the case may be, was left fully unprotected. The lack of transparency
due to respondent's failure to give acknowledgment receipts and the lack of written
contracts is highly suspicious of deceit and fraud because it inevitably placed Sanidad
in a rather disadvantageous position. Worse, respondent has utilized the lack of written
contracts and acknowledgment receipts in threatening to evict complainant n despite
the apparent receipt of payments.
The Court cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. The ethics of the legal
profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair
play and nobility in the course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity. Public
con dence in the law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper
conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in
such a manner that would promote public con dence in the integrity of the legal
profession. 2 1
Clearly, respondent failed to live up to the high standard of morality, honesty,
integrity, and fair dealing required of him as a member of the legal profession. Instead,
he employed his knowledge and skill of the law and took advantage of Sanidad to
secure undue gains for himself. aDSIHc

In Guillen v. Atty. Arnado, 2 2 Atty. Arnado was suspended from the practice of law
for a period of one (1) year for employing his knowledge and skill of the law to secure
undue gains for himself and to in ict serious damage on others. We, thus, modify the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to merely admonish respondent as We
do not find the same to be commensurate with respondent's transgressions.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, We nd Atty. Joseph John Gerald M. Aguas
guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR and STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the O ce of the Bar Con dant, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the O ce of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all the courts of the country.
SO ORDERED .
Leonen, A.B. Reyes, Jr., Hernando and Inting, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-8.

2. Annex "A," id. at 4.

3. Annex "A-1," id.

4. Annex "A-2," id. at 5.
5. Annex "A-3," id.

6. Annex "A-4," id. at 6.

7. Complainant alleged that she made the deposit amounting to P45,000.00 on Atty. Aguas' BPI
account albeit the deposit slip was misplaced.
8. Annex "A-5," rollo, p. 6.

9. Annex "A-6," id. at 7.

10. Annex "A-7," id.
11. Annex "A-8," id. at 8.

12. Rollo, pp. 9, 43, 44.

13. Id. at 10.

14. Id. at 11-15.

15. Id. at 59.

16. Id. at 61.

17. Id. at 81-82.
18. Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, 538 Phil. 501, 511 (2006).

19. Navarro, et al. v. Atty. Solidum, Jr., 725 Phil. 358, 367 (2014), citing Roa v. Atty. Moreno, 633
Phil. 1, 7 (2010).

20. Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 565-566 (2014). (Emphasis ours)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 21. Rivera v. Atty. Corral, 433 Phil. 331, 341-342 (2002).

22. A.C. No. 10547, November 8, 2017, 844 SCRA 280.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "respondent" in the original document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com