CORAZON T. NEVADA v. ATTY. RODOLFO D.

CASUGA
A.C. No. 7591, March 20, 2012, Velasco, Jr., J.
There is gross misconduct when there is a transgression of some established or definite rule
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence, or the corrupt or
persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known legal rules.
Facts:
Atty. Rodolfo represented himself as an administrator of Mt. Crest Hotel before a certain Jung
Jong Chul, for purposes of leasing an office space at the hotel. A lease contract was entered
between Atty. Rodolfo and Jung without the knowledge of Corazon, the principal stockholder
of the family corporation which owns Mt. Crest Hotel. Notably, Atty. Rodolfo signed over the
printed name of one of the principal stockholders and even notarized the document himself.
Atty. Rodolfo also received the sum of P90,000.00 as rental deposit.
In the course of their dealings, Corazon also delivered jewelries worth P300,000.00 and a
Rolex watch worth P12,000.00 to Atty. Rodolfo for purposes of selling them. Despite
repeated demands, Atty. Rodolfo failed to deliver either the proceeds of the sale or the items
themselves.
The IBP-CBD and the IBP Board of Governors found Atty. Rodolfo guilty of gross misconduct,
violation of the notarial law, and misappropriation of funds and property of the client.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Rodolfo is guilty of (1) gross misconduct, (2) violation of the notarial
law, and (3) misappropriation.
Ruling:
(1) YES. There is gross misconduct when there is a transgression of some established or
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence, or the
corrupt or persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known legal rules. Here, Atty.
Rodolfo took advantage of his apparent close relationship with Corazon by misrepresenting
himself to be authorized to enter into a contract of lease, and even receiving the benefits of
the said contract. Atty. Rodolfos acts therefore constitute gross misconduct.
(2) YES. The notarial law disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he or
she is a party to the instrument or document that is to be notarized. In this case, Atty.
Rodolfo became a party to the contract of lease when he affixed his signature above the
printed name of one of the principal stockholders without any qualification. When he
notarized the same contract, he went against the function of a Notary Public to guard
against any illegal or immoral arrangement.
(3) YES. Rule 16.03 of the CPR demands that a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his possession. Having been tasked to sell such
valuables, Atty. Rodolfo was duty-bound to return them upon demand. Sure enough, the
absence of a lawyer-client relationship between Atty. Casuga and Corazon does not
exonerate the former. Both the CPR and case law penalize not only malpractice and
dishonesty in the profession, but also gross misconduct not connected with the professional
duties of the lawyer.