Assignment for March 2, 2024- PALE (Case Digest)

PALE - CASE DIGEST- 2

[ A.C. No. 13229. June 21, 2023 ]

SPOUSES WILLIAM THOMAS AND MARIFE YUKOT

NILES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. CASIANO S. RETARDO,
JR., RESPONDENTS.

Facts:
The spouses William Thomas Niles and Marife Yukot Niles
filed a complaint against Atty. Casiano S. Retardo, Jr. for his alleged
preparation and notarization of loan agreement documents that did
not conform with Philippine laws, as well as his representation of
conflicting interests. The complainants sought the help of a lawyer to
prepare the loan agreement between them and spouses Teodora and Jose
Quirante. The lawyer, Atty. Casiano S. Retardo, Jr., prepared an
Acknowledgment Receipt and a Deed of Absolute Sale pertaining to a
property owned by the Quirantes. The Acknowledgment Receipt stated
the terms of the loan, including the interest and the collateral. It was
notarized by Atty. Retardo. In subsequent letters and communications,
Atty. Retardo reiterated the pactum commissorium stipulation in the
loan agreement, which allowed the complainants to take possession
of the mortgaged property in case of default by the Quirantes. When
the Quirantes defaulted on their loan obligation, the complainants
proceeded with the processing of the Deed of Absolute Sale to take
possession of the property. The Quirantes filed a complaint before
the RTC against the complainants for nullity of the Deed of Absolute
Sale and reconveyance of the property. The trial court ruled against
the complainants and nullified the loan agreement, citing it as a
pactum commissorium.

Issues:
1. Whether Atty. Retardo violated Philippine laws by preparing and
notarizing loan agreement documents that did not conform with Philippine
laws.

2. Whether Atty. Retardo represented conflicting interests in violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility.

2. SPS.-NILES-VS.-ATTY.-RETARDO-CASE DIGEST.docx 1
Assignment for March 2, 2024- PALE (Case Digest)

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the complainants and found Atty.
Retardo liable for his actions.

1. Atty. Retardo violated Philippine laws by preparing and

notarizing loan agreement documents that contained a pactum
commissorium, which is prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil
Code. The loan agreement allowed the complainants to take
possession of the mortgaged property in case of default by the
Quirantes, which is against Philippine laws.

2. Atty. Retardo represented conflicting interests by not informing the

complainants of his relationship with the Quirantes, particularly his role as
the principal sponsor in the wedding of Jojo Quirante, the son of the
Quirantes. This violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility compromised Atty. Retardo's ability to provide
unbiased and loyal representation to the complainants.Therefore, the
court held Atty. Casiano S. Retardo, Jr. liable for his actions in
preparing and notarizing loan agreement documents that violated
Philippine laws and for representing conflicting interests.

2. SPS.-NILES-VS.-ATTY.-RETARDO-CASE DIGEST.docx 2