Atty. Evelyn is the stepmother of Emiliani et al. Emiliani’s father died in 1988. In 2000, Emiliani and his siblings found out that Atty. Evelyn (through another lawyer) filed a petition for the issuance of duplicate titles over properties in Meycauayan, Bulacan. In her petition, Atty. EVelyn alleged that the properties were already transferred to her by way of settlement with the other heirs of her deceased husband and that she lost the titles. Emiliani and his siblings intervened in the case. They averred that the properties were never settled and partitioned and that the titles were actually in their possession and were never lost. Atty. Evelyn withdrew her petition. Subsequently, Emiliani et al. sought Atty. Evelyn’s disbarment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Evelyn should be sanctioned.
HELD: Yes. Atty. Evelyn misled the court. By filing a petition for issuance of duplicate copies of titles of the Meycauayan properties, Atty. Evelyn misled the court when she stated that the subject properties were already appropriated to her. Worse, when Atty. Evelyn was made to explain by the Supreme Court, she repeated the same misleading statements. Atty. Evelyn intentionally and deliberately made untruthful statements. Her willful attempt to deceive the courts, especially the SC, in making it appear that she already owned the Meycauayan properties through inheritance when she was fully aware that no final partition of the estate has yet been made. She intentionally employed deceit and lies to deceive the court. She used her legal knowledge and expertise as weapons to advance her own interests and selfish motives, and not to protect the integrity and trust of the public in the law and the courts. Indeed, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.”
Atty. Evelyn’s basis in claiming that the properties were appropriated to her was a letter from her deceased husband when he was still alive. However, a scrutiny of the letter reveals that the letter’s content was a mere proposal for partition and the same never appropriated any property to Atty. Evelyn. Moreover, as a lawyer, Atty. Evelyn ought to know that a mere letter indicating the prospective shares of the heirs is not equivalent to a legal partition or settlement of the estate. Atty. Evelyn’s contemptuous acts constitute grave misconduct which is defined as “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.” Her acts do not only speak of grave misconduct, but are also tantamount to deception, falsehood, and misuse of court processes. Atty. Evelyn was suspended for six months.
