5. Cristobal Basco, Alfredo Alla, and Tirso De Lara Vs. Atty. Joseph Ryan C.
Apasan
A.C. No. 12992. November 15, 2021
FACTS:
Complainants are the respondents in an ejectment suit before the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (PARAB) filed by the Heirs of Montellano Martinez (heirs of Martinez). Atty. Ireneo
Apasan (Atty. Ireneo), father of herein respondent Atty. Apasan, was the counsel of the heirs of Martinez
in the said case. When Atty. Ireneo died, Atty. Apasan became their new counsel and attended the
hearing on the execution of the decision of the ejectment case.
Pending the resolution of the case, complainants claimed that the subject property had been transferred
entirely or substantially in the name/s of Atty. lreneo, his wife and/or his relatives. Norma Martinez, by
virtue of a special power of attorney executed by the heirs, sold a portion of the subject property to
Atty. Irineo and Angelina Apasan, "their heirs, successors and assigns" by virtue of a Deed of Partial Sale
executed on June 30, 2006.
On the other hand, TCT No. 064-2013002718 was issued on June 26, 2013 in the name of several
owners, all surnamed Apasan, including respondent lawyer in this case.
Complainants averred that Atty. Apasan knew about the transfer of the title of the subject property in
his father's and/or family's name while the ejectment case was still pending and that the same was
illegal.
This prompted complainants to file the instant administrative complainant charging Atty. Apasan with
violation of the CPR.
On the other hand, Atty. Apasan, averred that the heirs of Martinez availed of his father's legal service
since 2002 in the filing of a case for recovery of possession of the subject property, to secure the titling
of the same, and to perform all acts relative thereto. As such, contrary to complainants' allegation, the
sale of the portion of the subject property in 2006 was pursuant to Atty. Ireneo and the heirs'
agreement that the former would receive one hectare of the subject property as compensation for the
successful titling of the land as stated in the contract of service.
Since the heirs of Martinez were financially incapable to pay the legal services of Atty. Ireneo, Atty.
Apasan averred that the heirs of Martinez agreed to pay Atty. Ireneo a portion of the subject property
which is permissible under Canon 13 of the CPR, on the basis of the successful prosecution of the
ejectment case and the titling of the land.
Atty. Apasan claimed that the complainants only filed the instant complaint against him to collaterally
attack the validity of the certificates of titles over the subject property.
In the Report and Recommendation dated June 22, 2018, the Investigating Commissioner recommended
to dismiss the administrative complaint against Atty. Apasan. The Investigation Commissioner opined
that the complainants failed to duly prove that Atty. Apasan participated in the transfer of ownership of
the subject property in his parents' and/or family's names.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Joesph Ryan C. Apasan violated the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court found Atty. Apasan not guilty of committing any conduct unbecoming of a
member of the bar. There is dearth of evidence indicating that Atty. Apasan had participation in the
transfer of the subject property. Indeed, the heirs of Martinez sold a portion of the subject property to
Atty. Irineo and Angelina Apasan, "their heirs, successors and assigns" in 2006. However, Atty. Apasan
was not even a signatory thereto. This simply shows that he has no participation in the sale transaction.
In fine, complainants' accusations are nothing but bare allegations absent clear and convincing evidence
that Atty. Apasan committed unethical conduct in the practice of law. SC agreed with the observation of
the IBP that the administrative complaint is merely a pretext for assailing the regularity of the transfer of
ownership of the subject property to the Apasans, which is not within the ambit of SC’s power to
discipline lawyers.
