BAGUISA vs.

DE GUZMAN  The Baguisas commenced 2

Adm. Case 738 | March 29, 1972 | Castro | separate civil actions.
Original Action [Disbarment]  Case against Loreta Sta. Ines and Jacinto
Complainants: Flora Baguisa & Rufino Matias with the CFI Nueva Ecija to
Baguisa compel the execution of the proper deed
Respondent:Alejandro de Guzman of sale covering the transfer of the
bulldozer from Matias to the Baguisas
Quick Summary:  Replevin case against Gloria Gener
Facts: The spouses Baguisa allegedly requested Alejandro
de Guzman to prepare a Deed of Sale of a bulldozer they directed at the recovery of the
bought from Matias. It is alleged by the Baguisas that de bulldozer’s possession
Guzman failed to prepare the said deed. Hence, they filed  Subsequently, Matias filed a
administrative charges against de Guzman for gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as lawyer and
criminal action for estafa with the City
betrayal of confidential communication. On the other hand, de Fiscal’s Office of Manila. He charged the
Guzman claims that only a principal-agent relationship existed Baguisas and de Guzman with the
between him and the Baguisas due to the special power of unauthorized disposal of the bulldozer.
attorney executed in his favor by the Baguisas.
Held: The use of the word attorney in the special power of  De Guzman moved for the
attorney is far from controlling the substance of the authority dropping of the charges against him due to
conferred therein. The SPA contemplated nothing more than the following:
the civil law concept of agency. Baguisas have not shown that
subsequent to its execution a relationship avowedly  All his actuations were in accordance
professional existed. In the 2 separate civil suits they brought, with the special power of attorney.
they availed of the legal services of some other lawyer.  He received assurance from the
Baguisas paid de Guzman P400. Said amount was de
Guzman’s reimbursement for expenses he incurred plus Baguisas that bulldozer really belonged
compensation as Baguisas’ agent. He had to travel from to them.
Gapan, Nueva Ecija to Quezon City on several occasions to  City Fiscal: dismissed the charges
negotiate with Gener and eventually finalize the sale of the
against de Guzman
bulldozer. Based on Flora Baguisa’s testimony, the Baguisas
could not have contemplated, as early as May 1961, the  The Baguisas filed administrative
execution of any Deed of Sale. Hence, they could not have charges against de Guzman for:
requested de Guzman to prepare the Deed in final form. 1. gross negligence in the performance of
his duties as lawyer due to his failure to
Facts: prepare the deed of sale
 Sometime in May 1961, the 2. betrayal of confidential communications
spouses Baguisa requested Alejandro de when de Guzman filed a motion to
Guzman to prepare a Deed of Sale covering dismiss
a bulldozer. Said bulldozer was sold by one  After de Guzman filed his answer,
Jacinto Matias to the spouses. The deed the Supreme Court referred the case to the
would put in proper form the verbal SolGen for investigation, report and
agreement between the parties, which the recommendation. SolGen filed his report
Baguisas alleged de Guzman negligently recommending the dismissal of the
omitted in preparing. administrative charges.
 De Guzman denies that any such Issue:
request for the preparation of the deed WON an attorney-client relationship existed
was ever made to him. between the Baguisas and de Guzman [NO]
 On June 9, 1961, an option sale Ratio:
over the bulldozer was executed by the  The believable circumstances
Baguisas in favor of Gloria Gener. surrounding the parties’ dealings lend
 3 days after, the Baguisas credence to de Guzman’s claim that the
executed a special power of attorney in Baguisas never sought his legal advice and
favor of de Guzman. It authorized de opinion concerning their rights or
Guzman to negotiate with Gener or any obligations relative to the bulldozer.
other party for the final sale of the  The use of the word attorney in the
bulldozer. special power of attorney is far from
 The next day, de Guzman, as the controlling the substance of the authority
Baguisas’ attorney-in-fact, executed a Deed conferred therein.
of Sale covering the bulldozer for P18,000.  The SPA’s text comes in the familiar
 Gener paid P6,125 as downpayment form that may be lifted out of any of the
 Balance to be paid in instalments for a legal form books widely available to
period of 6 months, which was secured anyone.
by a chattel mortgage in favor of the  The SPA contemplated nothing
Baguisas more than the civil law concept of agency.
  It did not and could not create a distinct
legal relation of attorney and client.
 Baguisas have not shown that
subsequent to its execution a
relationship avowedly professional
existed. In the 2 separate civil suits they
brought, they availed of the legal
services of some other lawyer.
 Baguisas paid de Guzman P400. Said
amount was de Guzman’s
reimbursement for expenses he incurred
plus compensation as Baguisas’ agent.
He had to travel from Gapan, Nueva
Ecija to Quezon City on several
occasions to negotiate with Gener and
eventually finalize the sale of the
bulldozer.
 Based on Flora Baguisa’s
testimony, the Baguisas could not have
contemplated, as early as May 1961, the
execution of any Deed of Sale. Hence, they
could not have requested de Guzman to
prepare the Deed in final form.
Dispositive: Complaint dismissed.