Uy vs. Gonzales Case DIgest
Uy vs. Gonzales Case DIgest
Uy vs. Gonzales Case DIgest
William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation
of the confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship.
The complainant alleges that sometime in April 1999, he engaged the services of respondent lawyer to
prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the
circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized
and submitted to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan. When
the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to his (complainant’s) office at Virra Mall, Greenhills
and demanded a certain amount from him other than what they had previously agreed upon. Respondent
left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find
out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a
letter-complaint dated July 26, 1999 against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Tayug,
Pangasinan for "Falsification of Public Documents." The letter-complaint contained facts and
circumstances pertaining to the transfer certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which
respondent was supposed to have filed.
According to the complainant, with the execution of the letter-complaint, respondent violated his oath as a
lawyer and grossly disregarded his duty to preserve the secrets of his client. Respondent
unceremoniously turned against him just because he refused to grant respondent’s request for additional
compensation. Respondent’s act tarnished his reputation and social standing.
In compliance with this Court’s Resolution dated July 31, 2000, respondent filed his Comment narrating
his version, as follows: On December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9 hectare-
property situated in Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan covered by TCT No. T-33122 which the latter
acquired by purchase from his (respondent’s) son, the late Fermin C. Gonzales, Jr.. On the same date, he
paid complainant P340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of TCT No. T-33122 as well as the execution
of the Deed of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant additional time to locate said title or until
after Christmas to deliver the same and execute the Deed of Redemption. After the said period, he went
to complainant’s office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of
Redemption. Instead, complainant gave him photocopies of TCT No. T-33122 and TCT No. T-5165.
Complainant explained that he had already transferred the title of the property, covered by TCT No.T-
5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy and that TCT No. T-5165 was misplaced and cannot be
located despite efforts to locate it. Wanting to protect his interest over the property coupled with his desire
to get hold of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible time, he offered his assistance pro bono to prepare a
petition for lost title provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for
transportation and others, estimated at P20,000.00, will be shouldered by complainant. To these,
complainant agreed.
On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title ready for signing and
notarization. On April 14, 1999, he went to complainant’s office informing him that the petition is ready for
filing and needs funds for expenses. Complainant who was with a client asked him to wait at the
anteroom where he waited for almost two hours until he found out that complainant had already left
without leaving any instructions nor funds for the filing of the petition. Complainant’s conduct infuriated
him which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition
he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition.
Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant was terminated
when he gave the handwritten letter to complainant; that there was no longer any professional
relationship between the two of them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public
document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-complaint for falsification were culled from
public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tayug, Pangasinan.
In a Resolution dated October 18, 2000, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. But both parties failed to attend, so the
hearing was reset. On April 29, 2003, Commissioner Villanueva-Maala received a letter from one Atty.
Augusto M. Macam dated April 24, 2003, stating that his client, William S. Uy, had lost interest in pursuing
the complaint he filed against Atty. Gonzales and requesting that the case against Atty. Gonzales be
dismissed.
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that the respondent be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX
(6) MONTHS. This was later on adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent violated any Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility upon filing
an affidavit-complaint against his client.
RULING:
No. While it is true that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, complainant failed to prove any of
the circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the disbarment or suspension of herein
respondent.
Notwithstanding respondent’s own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records reveals that the
relationship between complainant and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings
between them rather than the practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with complainant only
because he redeemed a property which complainant had earlier purchased from his (complainant’s) son.
It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its
title and execute the Deed of Redemption. However, despite the period given to him, complainant failed to
fulfill his end of the bargain because of the alleged loss of the title which he had admitted to respondent
as having prematurely transferred to his children, thus prompting respondent to offer his assistance so as
to secure the issuance of a new title to the property, in lieu of the lost one, with complainant assuming the
expenses therefor.
There is no attorney-client relationship. Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, Rule 21.01
of the CPR cannot apply to the present case. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for "Estafa
Through Falsification of Public Documents" filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by
respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to
hasten the issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant. Respondent’s
immediate objective was to secure the title of the property that complainant had earlier bought from his
son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant. The
preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only incidental to their personal
transaction.
The alleged "secrets" of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-complaint. Whatever facts
alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his professional capacity
but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when
respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging
facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no
way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein complainant to a misconduct that is
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or that renders him unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a
case against anyone to protect his personal or proprietary interests.
The decision of the IBP was set aside and the case was dismissed for lack of merit.
NOTE:
There is no relation to Canon 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.