Navigating Will Probate: Key Lessons From a Landmark Philippine Supreme Court Case

The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Cobarrubias-Nabaza v. Lavandero (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC, March 14, 2022) serves as a stern reminder that court processes, particularly those involving property placed under the custody of the court, must be followed to the letter. While the case arose from a collection dispute, its principles resonate deeply with estate and will probate practice, where properties are often placed under court supervision. The case underscores that lawyers, as officers of the court, face severe consequences for circumventing established procedures.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when a presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, a Court Attorney IV in the Office of the Court Administrator. Atty. Lavandero was a co-plaintiff in a Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) case pending before the judge's sala. After a favorable ruling, certain properties of the defendant, including a vehicle, were placed under custodia legis—meaning they were under the court's custody—for levy, execution, and auction sale.

The judge discovered that Atty. Lavandero had taken the vehicle in and out of the court premises on three occasions without her knowledge or approval, as captured on CCTV footage. Atty. Lavandero claimed he had won the vehicle in a public auction, but the court found no evidence supporting this. The Notice of Levy and Sale did not even list the vehicle among the properties to be auctioned.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Atty. Lavandero should be administratively sanctioned for his actions. The Court examined two separate proceedings: one against him as a court employee and another against him as a member of the Bar.

The Ruling: Misconduct in Handling Court-Custodied Property

The Supreme Court found Atty. Lavandero guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in the administrative case. The Court clarified that his acts could not be considered Grave or Simple Misconduct because they were not connected to his official duties as a Court Attorney. However, his actions—taking property under custodia legis without court approval—still warranted sanction.

The Court imposed a fine of ₱90,000.00, applying the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which was less prejudicial to him than the civil service rules that would have required suspension.

The Ruling: Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility

In the separate case against Atty. Lavandero as a lawyer, the Court found him guilty of violating several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR):

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10: A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court and shall not mislead it.
• Rule 12.04, Canon 12: A lawyer shall not misuse court processes.

The Court emphasized that lawyers in government service are not insulated from disciplinary action as members of the Bar. Citing the earlier case of Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, the Court suspended Atty. Lavandero from the practice of law for one year.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect court custody strictly. Any property under custodia legis cannot be moved, sold, or disposed of without the court's prior knowledge and approval. This applies equally in probate and estate proceedings where assets are under court supervision.
• Document every step. In any court-supervised sale or auction, maintain complete documentary evidence, including notices of levy and sale, auction records, and court approvals. The absence of such documents proved fatal in this case.
• Lawyers face dual liability. Misconduct can result in both administrative sanctions as a court employee and disciplinary action as a member of the Bar. These are separate proceedings with separate penalties.
• Resignation does not end liability. A lawyer who resigns from a government position during the pendency of an administrative case cannot escape liability. The Court retains jurisdiction over the case.
• Know the applicable rules. The Court will apply the rule that is more favorable to the respondent when rules have changed between the time of the offense and the resolution of the case.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.