Rogelio H. Villanuevavs.Atty. Amado B. Deloria

FACTS:

- A disbarment complaint against Atty. Deloria filed by Villanueva in connection with the case De Gracia Vs. estate of Jaime Gonzales. Deloria acts as counsel of De Gracia

- In the De Gracia case the estate of Jaime Gonzales was required to pay the De Gracia with P69,000 with interest, but Atty. Deloria filed a motion for Issuance of Substitute Judgment claiming that the estate of Jaime Gonzales does not want to pay.

- Atty. Deloria’s misinterpretation is allegedly a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 1, 10, 12, 19, and 11 because he sought the substitution of a decision which he knew had already become final and executory

- Moreover, according o Villanueva, Atty. Deloria offered him 50% of the recoverable amount in the case if he resolves the latter’s motions favorably

- Atty. Deloria’s conduct allegedly violates previously cited Cannons of the Code, Cannon 13 and 15, Rule 15.06, Art. 212 of RPC, Attorney’s Oath of Office and Art. 19 of RPC

- Case was referred to IBP, Atty. Deloria was recommended for suspension of practice for 2 years and a fine of P20,000. But investigating officer did not conduct a hearing to hear both parties.

HELD

- Complaints against lawyers are normally addressed to the Court. If court sees that case needs more inquiry it will refer it to the IBP

- Instant administrative case is REMANDED to IBP for further proceedings.