“When the time is right, I, the Lord, will make it happen.
”
JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN AND ROBERT C. TORRES, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., ATTY. RENATO G.
CUNANAN, ATTY. DANIEL F. VICTORIO, JR., AND ATTY.
ELBERT T. QUILALA, Respondents.
A.C. No. 8261, March 11, 2015
Facts:
The surviving children of the late spouses Torres inherited upon the deaths of their
parents a residential lot registered under a Transfer Certificate Title (TCT). In
2006, they have discovered that the TCT had been unlawfully cancelled and
replaced by a new TCT under the names of Ramon and Josefina Ricafort. They
immediately caused the annotation of their affidavit of adverse claim on the
registered lot.
In a prior case, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement in order to end
their dispute whereby the complainants agreed to sell the property and the
proceeds thereof would be equally divided between the parties and that the
counterclaim would be withdrawn by the complainants. Pursuant to such
settlement, Atty. Victorio withdraw the complaint to which the RTC granted.
After the case was withdrawn, the complainants could no longer contact nor locate
Atty. Victorio. The complainants found out that new annotations were made on the
TCT of the registered lot. Not hearing from Atty. Victorio, the complainants felt
that said counsel had abandoned their case. They have submitted that the
cancellation of their notice of adverse claim and their notice of lis pendens without
a court order specifically allowing such cancellation resulted from the connivance
and conspiracy between Atty. Victorio and Atty. Tolentino from taking advantage
of their positions as officials in the Registry of Deeds by respondents Atty. Quilala,
the Chief Registrar, and Atty. Cunanan, the acting Registrar and signatory of the
new annotations. Thus, they claimed to have been prejudiced
Issue: WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct?
Ruling: NO
Article 27 of the Civil Code provides that: Any person suffering material or moral
loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause,
to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief
against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that
may be taken.
In this case, the complaint is bereft of merit. The complainants have engaged the
legal services of Atty. Victorio as their counsel in the Civil Case and the latter was
able to discharge his duties. With the help of his assistance, the complainants
obtained a fair settlement consisting in receiving half of the proceeds of the sale of
the property in litis without any portion of the proceeds accruing to counsel as his
legal fees. The complainants failed to competently and persuasively show any
unfaithfulness on the part of Atty. Victorio as far as his interest in the litigation is
concerned. The same cannot be faulted for the perceived inattention to any other
matters subsequent to the termination of the Civil Case.
