When Lawyers Overstep: Misrepresentation in Property Redemption and Disbarment Risks

A lawyer who misrepresents himself as an authorized representative to redeem a delinquent property commits dishonest and deceitful conduct warranting suspension from the practice of law. In Bernal, Jr. v. Atty. Prias (A.C. No. 11217, October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court reminded the legal profession that a lawyer's ethical obligations extend beyond the courtroom and into private dealings, particularly when dealing with government offices.

The Facts of the Case

In December 2014, Atty. Ernesto M. Prias went to the office of the City Treasurer of Antipolo City to redeem a property registered under Solid Builders, Inc. He claimed to be the authorized representative of the delinquent taxpayer or a person holding a lien over the property. The property, a 766-square meter lot covered by TCT No. N-123108, had unpaid real property taxes.

Atty. Prias paid the delinquent taxes amounting to P167,982.80. The City Treasurer informed him that the payment would only benefit the declared owner and required him to submit proof of authority or ownership by January 12, 2015. When Atty. Prias failed to submit any documentation, the City Treasurer cancelled the redemption and offered a refund.

Later, the registered owners of Solid Builders, Inc. revealed that Atty. Prias had previously offered to buy the property, but his offer was denied. The corporation had designated a different individual as their authorized representative for the redemption.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Prias violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he represented himself as authorized to redeem the property without any written authority from the registered owner.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' recommendation to dismiss the complaint and found Atty. Prias guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for two years.

Who May Redeem a Delinquent Property

Under Section 261 of Republic Act No. 7160, also known as the Local Government Code, only the following may redeem a delinquent real property within one year from the date of sale:

• The owner of the delinquent real property
• A person having legal interest therein
• The owner's representative

The Court noted that Atty. Prias fully knew he was not authorized to redeem the property. He participated in the auction sale to protect his gravel and sand business, lost the bidding, and then misrepresented himself as the owner's representative to redeem the property. He even promised to submit written authority but failed to do so.

Ethical Standards for Lawyers

The Court emphasized that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege granted only to those of good moral character. Lawyers must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing, whether dealing with clients or the public at large.

A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct in either professional or private capacity that shows a lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. In this case, the lawyer's act of misrepresenting himself was a clear indication of dishonesty and deceitful conduct that erodes public confidence in the legal profession.

Practical Takeaways

• Redemption rights are limited. Only the property owner, a person with legal interest, or an authorized representative may redeem a delinquent property under Section 261 of the Local Government Code.
• Written authority matters. Anyone claiming to represent a property owner must have proper documentation, such as a special power of attorney or board resolution, before dealing with government offices.
• Lawyers face discipline for private misconduct. Ethical obligations under the CPR apply to a lawyer's private dealings, not just professional work.
• Misrepresentation has serious consequences. A lawyer who misrepresents authority to government officials risks suspension or disbarment.
• Substantial evidence is the standard. In disbarment cases, the complainant must establish the case by substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

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