Rule 16.

04: no borrowing or lending

Rubias v. Batiller
51 SCRA 120 (1973)

Contention of the Petitioner:

Atty. Rubias, filed action claiming rights over a property that was sold to
him by his father-in-law, Francisco Militante. The land in question was a
subject of a case Militante filed in order to claim its actual ownership. In
such action, Atty. Rubias was the delegated counsel. A sale was then made
between Atty. Rubias and Militante.

He now filed an action against Isaias Batiller, alleging that he illegally

entered the said property on two occasions.

Contention of the Respondent:

However, respondent Isaias Batiller contended that petitioner has no cause of

action against the property which he claimed was owned by him and his
predecessors in interest since time immemorial.

Held:

The Court contended that petitioner has no cause of action.

To begin with, Article 1491 of the Civil Code, barring employees connected
with the administration of Justice including that of lawyers to acquire any
purchase, even at a public auction, either in person of through the mediation
of another.

In the present case, Militante sold the property to Atty. Rubias while the
case concerning it was still pending. This makes the sale void as the court
contended eventually ruled to dismiss the case, hence Militante lost all
rights over the said property.
In the case of Abagat, the court cited the primary reason as to why lawyers or
other administrators of justice are barred from making such purchases.

“…a lawyer is presumed to know the law. He must therefore, from the
beginning, have been well aware of the defect in this title and is,
consequently a possessor in bad faith.”

The sheer of nature of using a property subject to litigation as a form of

payment between lawyer and client is contrary to Rule 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.