BAGUISA vs.
DE GUZMAN
Adm. Case 738 | March 29, 1972 | Castro |
Original Action [Disbarment]
Complainants: Flora Baguisa & Rufino
Baguisa
Respondent:Alejandro de Guzman
Quick Summary:
Facts: The spouses Baguisa allegedly requested Alejandro
de Guzman to prepare a Deed of Sale of a bulldozer they
bought from Matias. It is alleged by the Baguisas that de
Guzman failed to prepare the said deed. Hence, they filed
administrative charges against de Guzman for gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as lawyer and
betrayal of confidential communication. On the other hand, de
Guzman claims that only a principal-agent relationship existed
between him and the Baguisas due to the special power of
attorney executed in his favor by the Baguisas.
Held: The use of the word attorney in the special power of
attorney is far from controlling the substance of the authority
conferred therein. The SPA contemplated nothing more than
the civil law concept of agency. Baguisas have not shown that
subsequent to its execution a relationship avowedly
professional existed. In the 2 separate civil suits they brought,
they availed of the legal services of some other lawyer.
Baguisas paid de Guzman P400. Said amount was de
Guzman’s reimbursement for expenses he incurred plus
compensation as Baguisas’ agent. He had to travel from
Gapan, Nueva Ecija to Quezon City on several occasions to
negotiate with Gener and eventually finalize the sale of the
bulldozer. Based on Flora Baguisa’s testimony, the Baguisas
could not have contemplated, as early as May 1961, the
execution of any Deed of Sale. Hence, they could not have
requested de Guzman to prepare the Deed in final form.
Facts:
 Sometime in May 1961, the
spouses Baguisa requested Alejandro de
Guzman to prepare a Deed of Sale covering
a bulldozer. Said bulldozer was sold by one
Jacinto Matias to the spouses. The deed
would put in proper form the verbal
agreement between the parties, which the
Baguisas alleged de Guzman negligently
omitted in preparing.
 De Guzman denies that any such
request for the preparation of the deed
was ever made to him.
 On June 9, 1961, an option sale
over the bulldozer was executed by the
Baguisas in favor of Gloria Gener.
 3 days after, the Baguisas
executed a special power of attorney in
favor of de Guzman. It authorized de
Guzman to negotiate with Gener or any
other party for the final sale of the
bulldozer.
 The next day, de Guzman, as the
Baguisas’ attorney-in-fact, executed a Deed
of Sale covering the bulldozer for P18,000.
 Gener paid P6,125 as downpayment
 Balance to be paid in instalments for a
period of 6 months, which was secured
by a chattel mortgage in favor of the
Baguisas
 The Baguisas commenced 2
separate civil actions.
 Case against Loreta Sta. Ines and Jacinto
Matias with the CFI Nueva Ecija to
compel the execution of the proper deed
of sale covering the transfer of the
bulldozer from Matias to the Baguisas
 Replevin case against Gloria Gener
directed at the recovery of the
bulldozer’s possession
 Subsequently, Matias filed a
criminal action for estafa with the City
Fiscal’s Office of Manila. He charged the
Baguisas and de Guzman with the
unauthorized disposal of the bulldozer.
 De Guzman moved for the
dropping of the charges against him due to
the following:
 All his actuations were in accordance
with the special power of attorney.
 He received assurance from the
Baguisas that bulldozer really belonged
to them.
 City Fiscal: dismissed the charges
against de Guzman
 The Baguisas filed administrative
charges against de Guzman for:
1. gross negligence in the performance of
his duties as lawyer due to his failure to
prepare the deed of sale
2. betrayal of confidential communications
when de Guzman filed a motion to
dismiss
 After de Guzman filed his answer,
the Supreme Court referred the case to the
SolGen for investigation, report and
recommendation. SolGen filed his report
recommending the dismissal of the
administrative charges.
Issue:
WON an attorney-client relationship existed
between the Baguisas and de Guzman [NO]
Ratio:
 The believable circumstances
surrounding the parties’ dealings lend
credence to de Guzman’s claim that the
Baguisas never sought his legal advice and
opinion concerning their rights or
obligations relative to the bulldozer.
 The use of the word attorney in the
special power of attorney is far from
controlling the substance of the authority
conferred therein.
 The SPA’s text comes in the familiar
form that may be lifted out of any of the
legal form books widely available to
anyone.
 The SPA contemplated nothing
more than the civil law concept of agency.
  It did not and could not create a distinct
legal relation of attorney and client.
 Baguisas have not shown that
subsequent to its execution a
relationship avowedly professional
existed. In the 2 separate civil suits they
brought, they availed of the legal
services of some other lawyer.
 Baguisas paid de Guzman P400. Said
amount was de Guzman’s
reimbursement for expenses he incurred
plus compensation as Baguisas’ agent.
He had to travel from Gapan, Nueva
Ecija to Quezon City on several
occasions to negotiate with Gener and
eventually finalize the sale of the
bulldozer.
 Based on Flora Baguisa’s
testimony, the Baguisas could not have
contemplated, as early as May 1961, the
execution of any Deed of Sale. Hence, they
could not have requested de Guzman to
prepare the Deed in final form.
Dispositive: Complaint dismissed.