Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to the SocietyDuty to Client

WILLEM KUPERS vs. ATTY. JOHNSON B. HONTANOSASA.C. No. 5704, May 8, 2009

This is an administrative case against respondent attorney triggered by a letter-complaint.

Facts:Respondent had prepared a memorandum of agreement and a contract of lease between the spouses Busse and Hochstrasser, a Swiss national. Under said agreement, Hochstrasser would lease Vivian Busses property in Alcoy, Cebu for fifty (50) years, renewable for another fifty (50) years. Complainant added that respondent had acted despite conflict of interest on his part since the Spouses Busse and Hochstrasser were both his clients. Respondent prepared a similar agreement and lease contract between the spouses Busse and Karl Emberger, a Swiss national, over another parcel of land in Alcoy, Cebu. This time the lease contract was for a period of forty nine (49) years renewable for another forty nine (49) years. All four (4) documents were notarized by respondent. It was also averred that respondent drafted two deeds of sale over the leased properties of Spouses Busse to Naomie Melchior, a Filipina, and Karl Novak, a German National. Complainant then filed a verified-complaint against respondent attorney. The case was referred to the integrated bar of the Philippines where the investigating Commissioner that respondent had prepared and notarized contracts that violated Presidential Decree No. 471 (P.D. No. 471) since leases of private lands by aliens cannot exceed twenty five (25) years, renewable for another twenty five (25) years only. The commissioner recommended the suspension of private respondent in the private practice of law for two months. The IBP board of governors did not adopt the recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Hence the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Issue:Whether or not the accused violated the code of professional responsibility by preparing and notarizing the contracts in question

Ruling:The Supreme Court rejects the IBP Board of Governors in dismissing the complaint. Respondent, by drafting the questioned lease agreements, caused his clients to violate Section 7 of R.A. No. 7652. Said law allows the lease for the original period of fifty (50) years, renewable for another period of twenty five (25) years, well below the periods of fifty (50) years renewable for another fifty (50) years, and forty-nine (49) years renewable for another forty-nine (49) years respectively, stipulated in the two lease agreements. In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorneys Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an attorney-at-law is to obey the laws of the Philippines. This duty is enshrined in the Attorneys Oath and in Canon 1, which provides that (a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal systems.Aside from constituting violation of the lawyers oath, the acts of respondents also amount to gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of theRules of Court. Adjudication:Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, is found GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and gross misconduct. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Reyes, Jareed C.Duty to Society

JOVITO S. OLAZO VS JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGAA.M. No. 10-5-7-SC, December 7, 2010

This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante Tinga for violating Rule 6.02, Rule6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts: The complainant filed a sales application covering a parcel of land situated in Barangay Lower Bicutan in the Municipality of Taguig. The Committee on Awards was headed by the Director of Lands and the respondent was one of the Committee members, in his official capacity as the Congressman of Taguig and Pateros (from 1987 to 1998). Complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with the complainants sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land. The complainant alleged that the respondent exerted undue pressure and influence over the complainants father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest the complainants sales application and claim the subject land for himself. The complainant further claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the nephew of the respondents deceased wife.The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to Manuel Olazo, the complainants brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez. As a result of the respondents promptings, the rights to the land were transferred to Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez.The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on Awards.Issue:Whether or not respondent violated Rule 6.02, Rule6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:The court after a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by both parties and their respective pieces of evidence, resolve to dismiss the administrative complaint. Rule 6.02 a lawyer from using his or her public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or (3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We previously held that the restriction extends to all government lawyers who use their public offices to promote their private interests.The court finds absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rodriguez. The records show that it was only on August 2, 2000 that the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR rendered its decision, or after the term of the respondents elective public office and membership to the Committee on Awards, which expired in 1997. The complainants allegation that the respondent orchestrated the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the orchestration wasundertaken. As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales application covering Manuels land when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards. The complainant, too, failed to sufficiently establish that the respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal service rendered by the respondent was limited only in the preparation of a single document. Private practice of law is one that contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the definition of practice of law, the available pieces of evidence are insufficient to show that the legal representation was made before the Committee on Awards, or that the assurance was intended to be presented before it. These are matters for the complainant to prove and we cannot consider any uncertainty in this regard against the respondents favor.

Adjudication:The administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, is dismissed for lack of merit.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to ClientDuty to Society

ROLANDO PACANA vs. ATTY. MARICEL PASCUAL-LOPEZA.C. No. 8243, July 24 2009

This is an administrative complaint charging the respondent with flagrant violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts:According to complainant, in mid-2002, Multitel was besieged by demand letters from its members and investors because of the failure of its investment schemes. He alleges that he earned the ire of Multitel investors after becoming the assignee of majority of the shares of stock of Precedent and after being appointed as trustee of a fund amounting to Thirty Million Pesos. Distraught, complainant sought the advice of respondent who also happened to be a member of the Couples for Christ, a religious organization where complainant and his wife were also active members. From then on, complainant and respondent constantly communicated, with the former disclosing all his involvement and interests in Precedent and Precedents relation with Multitel.After a few weeks, complainant was surprised to receive a demand letter from respondent asking for the return and immediate settlement of the funds invested by respondents clients in Multitel. When complainant confronted respondent about the demand letter, the latter explained that she had to send it so that her clients defrauded investors of Multitel would know that she was doing something for them and assured complainant that there was nothing to worry about. On these occasions, respondent impressed upon complainant that she can closely work with officials of the government to resolve complainants problems. Respondent also asked money from complainant allegedly for safekeeping to be used only for his case whenever necessary. Complainant agreed and gave her an initial amount of P900,000.00 which was received by respondent herself. Sometime thereafter, complainant again gave respondent P1,000,000.00. Said amounts were all part of Precedents collections and sales proceeds which complainant held as assignee of the companys properties.Complainant, thereafter, received several e-mail messages from respondent updating him of the status of the case against Multitel and promised that she will settle the matter discreetly with government officials she can closely work with in order to clear complainants name. In two separate e-mail messages, respondent again asked money from complainant, P200,000 of which was handed by complainants wife whilerespondent was confined in Saint Lukes Hospital after giving birth, and another P700,000 allegedly to be given to the NBI. Respondent was able to convince complainant who was still in the US to execute a deed of assignment in favor of respondent allowing the latter to retrieve 178 boxes containing cellular phones and accessories stored in complainants house and inside a warehouse. He also signed a blank deed of sale authorizing respondent to sell his 2002 Isuzu Trooper.By April 2004, however, complainant noticed that respondent was evading him. Respondent would either refuse to return complainants call or would abruptly terminate their telephone conversation, citing several reasons. This went on for several months. On November 9, 2004, fed up and dismayed with respondents arrogance and evasiveness, complainant wrote respondent a letter formally asking for a full accounting of all the money, documents and properties given to the latter. The demand was unsatisfied hence complainant filed this present case.

Issue: Whether or not a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility was committed

Ruling:Respondent violated her duty to be candid, fair and loyal to her client when she allowed herself to represent conflicting interests and failed to render a full accounting of all the cash and properties entrusted to her. She violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional responsibility. Respondent must have known that her act of constantly and actively communicating with complainant, who, at that time, was beleaguered with demands from investors of Multitel, eventually led to the establishment of a lawyer-client relationship. Respondent cannot shield herself from the inevitable consequences of her actions by simply saying that the assistance she rendered to complainant was only in the form of friendly accommodations, precisely because at the time she was giving assistance to complainant, she was already privy to the cause of the opposing parties who had been referred to her by the SEC. Respondent also tries to disprove the existence of such relationship by arguing that no written contract for the engagement of her services was ever forged between her and complainant. This argument all the more reveals respondents patent ignorance of fundamental laws on contracts and of basic ethical standards expected from an advocate of justice.Indubitably, respondent took advantage of complainants hapless situation, initially, by giving him legal advice and, later on, by soliciting money and properties from him. Thereafter, respondent impressed upon complainant that she had acted with utmost sincerity in helping him divest all the properties entrusted to him in order to absolve him from any liability But simultaneously, she was also doing the same thing to impress upon her clients, the party claimants against Multitel, that she was doing everything to reclaim the money they invested with Multitel. Respondent herself admitted to complainant that without the latters help, she would not have been able to earn as much and that, as a token of her appreciation, she was willing to share some of her earnings with complainant. Clearly, respondents act is shocking, as it not only violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, but also toyed with decency and good taste.

Adjudication:Respondent Attorney Maricel Pascual-Lopez is hereby disbarred for representing conflicting interests and for engaging in unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of her Lawyers Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to ClientDuty to CourtsDuty to the Legal Profession

DOLORES C. BELLEZA vs. ATTY. ALAN MACASAA.C. no. 7815, July 23 2009

This is a complaint for disbarment for unprofessional and unethical conduct in connection with handling a criminal case.

Facts:On November 10, 2004, complainant went to see respondent on referral of their mutual friend, Joe Chua. Complainant wanted to avail of respondents legal services in connection with the case of her son, Francis John Belleza, who was arrested by policemen of Bacolod City earlier that day for alleged violation of Republic Act (RA) 9165. Respondent agreed to handle the case for P30,000.The following day, complainant made a partial payment of P15,000 to respondent thru their mutual friend Chua. On November 17, 2004, she gave him an additional P10,000. She paid the P5,000 balance on November 18, 2004. Both payments were also made thru Chua. On all three occasions, respondent did not issue any receipt.On November 21, 2004, respondent received P18,000 from complainant for the purpose of posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of her (complainants) son. Again, respondent did not issue any receipt. When complainant went to the court the next day, she found out that respondent did not remit the amount to the court.Complainant demanded the return of the P18,000 from respondent on several occasions but respondent ignored her. Moreover, respondent failed to act on the case of complainants son and complainant was forced to avail of the services of the Public Attorneys Office for her sons defense. Hence she filed this case.In an order dated July 13, 2005 the Commission on Bar Discipline required respondent to submit his answer within 15 days from receipt thereof. Respondent, in an urgent motion for extension of time to file an answer dated August 10, 2005, simply brushed aside the complaint for being baseless, groundless and malicious without, however, offering any explanation. He also prayed that he be given until September 4, 2005 to submit his answer. Respondent subsequently filed urgent motions for second and third extensions of time praying to be given until November 4, 2005 to submit his answer. He never did.Issue:Whether or not a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility was committed

Ruling:Respondent was given more than enough opportunity to answer the charges against him. Yet, he showed indifference to the orders of the CBD for him to answer and refute the accusations of professional misconduct against him. In doing so, he failed to observe Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complyingwith court directives as an officer of the court.A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his clients rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied. In this case, after accepting the criminal case against complainants son and receiving his attorneys fees, respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes, respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on account of respondents continued inaction, complainant was compelled to seek the services of the Public Attorneys Office. Respondents lackadaisical attitude towards the case of complainants son was reprehensible. Not only did it prejudice complainants son, it also deprived him of his constitutional right to counsel. Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client, respondent unduly impeded the latters constitutional right to bail. When a lawyer collects or receives money from his client for a particular purpose (such as for filing fees, registration fees, transportation and office expenses), he should promptly account to the client how the money was spent. If he does not use the money for its intended purpose, he must immediately return it to the client.His failure either to render an accounting or to return the money (if the intended purpose of the money does not materialize) constitutes a blatant disregard of Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.For his failure to comply with the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed to obey Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers should always live up to the ethical standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Public confidence in law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and comport himself in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

Adjudication: Atty. Alan S. Macasa is hereby found guilty not only of dishonesty but also of professional misconduct for prejudicing Francis John Bellezas right to counsel and to bail under Sections 13 and 14(2), Article III of the Constitution, and for violating Canons 1, 7, 17, 18 and 19 and Rules 12.03, 16.01, 16.02, 16.03 and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is therefore disbarred from the practice of law effective immediately.Respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant Dolores C. Belleza the amounts of P30,000 and P18,000 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this decision until full payment. Respondent is further directed to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment. Failure to do so will subject him to criminal prosecution.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal Profession

FOODSPHERE, INC. vs. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO, JR. A.C. no. 7199, July 22, 2009

This is an administrative complaint against respondent for breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility for (1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyers oath and (3) disrespect to the courts and to investigating prosecutors.

Facts:A certain Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from a grocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of CDO Liver spread. On June 27, 2004, as Cordero and his relatives were eating bread with the CDO Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon discovered a colony of worms inside the can. the BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing on July 27, 2004 during which the spouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages from complainant. Complainant refused to heed the demand, however, as being in contravention of company policy and, in any event, outrageous.In the meantime or on August 6, 2004, respondent sent complainant via fax a copy of the front page of the would-be August 10-16, 2004 issue of the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS, Vol. 1, No. 12 which complainant found to contain articles maligning, discrediting and imputing vices and defects to it and its products. Respondent threatened to publish the articles unless complainant gave in to the P150,000 demand of the Corderos. Complainant thereupon reiterated its counter-offer earlier conveyed to the Corderos, but respondent turned it down. Respondent later proposed to settle the matter for P50,000, P15,000 of which would go to the Corderos and P35,000 to his BATAS Foundation. And respondent directed complainant to place paid advertisements in the tabloids and television program.The Corderos eventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD thus dismissed the complaint. Respondent, who affixed his signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote in one of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the document. On August 11, 2004, respondent sent complainant an Advertising Contract asking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas BATAS forits next 24 weekly issues at P15,000 per issue or a total amount of P360,000, and a Program Profile of the television program KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place spot advertisements with the following rate cards: (a) spot buy 15-second TVC at P4,000; (b) spot buy 30-second TVC at P7,700; and (c) season buy [13 episodes, 26 spots] of 30-second TVC for P130,000. As a sign of goodwill, complainant offered to buy three full-page advertisements in the tabloid amounting to P45,000 at P15,000 per advertisement, and three spots of 30-second TVC in the television program at P7,700 each or a total of P23,100. Acting on complainants offer, respondent relayed to it that he and his Executive Producer were disappointed with the offer and threatened to proceed with the publication of the articles/columns.Thus, respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles which putcomplainant in bad light. Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in his other columns. Complainant thus filed criminal complaints against respondent and several others for Libel and Threatening to Publish Libel under Articles 353 and 356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City and Valenzuela City. in a Motion to Dismiss [the case] for Lack of Jurisdiction which respondent filed, as counsel for his therein co-respondents-staffers of the newspaper before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City, respondent used the words If the Complainant or its lawyer merely used even a little of whateveris inside their thick skulls, they would have clearly deduced that this Office has no jurisdiction over this action.Hence, complainant filed this present recourse.

Issue: Whether or not a breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility was committed

Ruling:Respondent engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of the complaintagainst CDO to advance his interest to obtain funds for his BATAS Foundation and seek sponsorships and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program. By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continuedwith his attacks against complainant and its products. At the same time, respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath as a member of the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities.Respondent violated Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by using intemperate language.By failing to live up to his oath and to comply with the exacting standards of the legal profession, respondent also violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which directs a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity and the dignity of the legal profession.

Adjudication:Atty. Melanio Mauricio is, for violation of the lawyers oath and breach of ethics of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended from the practice of law for three years effective upon his receipt of this Decision. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyCode of Judicial Conduct

ALFREDO FAVOR vs. JUDGE CESAR UNTALANA.M. RTJ-08-2158, July 30, 2009

This is a complaint against respondent for alleged trespassing and violation of Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Facts:Consolacion Abando was the registered owner of Lots 7, 8 and 9 at Halcon Street, Mandaluyong City. She mortgaged two of these lots to Francisco Lozada by way of accommodation for the principal debtor. Lozada eventually foreclosed Lots 8 and 9. Abando, instead of occupying Lot 7, which had not been foreclosed, took up residence at Lot 9. WhenSta. Maria and Guillarte learned that Abando hailed from Pangasinan, they thought of asking respondent Judge, who was also from Pangasinan, to help them convince Abando to exchange Lot 9, which was in her possession, with Lot 7, which was in Lozadas possession. They asked respondent Judge to accompany them to the residence of Abando and persuade her to agree to exchange said lots for P100,000.00. Respondent Judge, Sta. Maria and Guillarte went to Abandos house at 516 Halcon Street, Mandaluyong City, where complainant Alfredo Favor resided. Complainant alleged that respondent Judge pushed open the door of the house and placed his right foot inside so complainant could not close the door. Respondent Judge inquired if complainant was Alfredo Favor, to which complainant replied yes. Respondent Judge then told him, Mr. Favor, mali ang tinitirahan niyo (you are living at the wrong address). While saying this, respondent Judge, Sta. Maria and Guillarte entered the house and sat on the sofa. Complainant also alleged that respondent Judge offered him P100,000.00.On the other hand, respondent Judge denied the allegations of complainant. He alleged that, while it was true that he, Sta. Maria and Guillarte went to the house at Halcon Street, Mandaluyong City in October 2001, respondent did not push open the door, because a young girl had opened the gate to let them in. He said that his companions had requested him to accompany them to that house for the purpose of offering the occupants therein the sum of P100,000.00 from Lozada for them to vacate the lot in question.

Issue:Whether or not respondent committed trespass to dwelling and a violation of of Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling:While it is true that the act of putting ones foot inside the door constitutes entry against the implied prohibition of the occupant, complainants allegation unfortunately remains uncorroborated. It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations of his complaint.As complainant has failed to submit proof of his statement, his testimony deserves scant consideration as compared with that of respondent Judge, which was supported by the affidavits of Sta. Maria and Guillarte categorically stating that the respondent Judge did not need to push open the door, because they were ushered inside by a young woman.The Court gives greater credence to the explanation of respondent Judge that he had merely accompanied Sta. Maria and Guillarte to the house occupied by complainant with the purpose of offering the occupant the sum of P100,000.00 from Lozada to vacate the lot.However, by using his position to help private persons settle a legal dispute, respondent Judge is administratively liable under Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His intentions may have been noble as he sought to make complainant realize that he had been occupying by mistake the property subject of the dispute, but respondent Judge should be mindful to conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach. Respondent Judge should be more prudent in the observance of his dealings with the public to obviate the mistaken impression of impropriety in that he is probably using his position as a judge to impose improper pressure or exert undue influence so as to obtain the desired result in a given situation.

Adjudication:Judge Cesar Untalan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Makati City, is found guilty of violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and ordered to pay a fine of P5, 000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal ProfessionDuty to Client

KELD STEMMERIK vs. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MASA.C. No. 8010, June 16 2009

This disbarment case against respondent for flagrant violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Facts:Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. He consulted respondent who advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as his representative or attorney-in-fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received a P400,000 fee. Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark, entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent. Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property. Subsequently, respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million. Respondent also drafted and notarized an agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was complainant who provided the funds for the purchase of the property. Complainant then gave respondent the full amount of the purchase price (P3.8 million) for which respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt. After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in touch with respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his name. However, respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer complainants calls and e-mail messages. Thereafter, complainant, through his attorneys-in-fact, exerted diligent efforts to locate respondent for purposes of holding him accountable for his fraudulent acts. Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. He deplored respondents acts of serious misconduct. In particular, he sought the expulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with complainants P3.8 million.

Issue:Whether or not respondent is liable for the infractions of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling: Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession. By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law. Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after unethical act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards. For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit, Canon 7, Canon 15, 16 and 17.

Adjudication:Respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is disbarred. The Clerk of Court is directed to immediately strike out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys. Respondent is hereby ordered to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this resolution until full payment. Respondent is further directed to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment.The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ordered to locate Atty. Mas and file the appropriate criminal charges against him. The NBI is further directed to regularly report the progress of its action in this case to this Court through the Bar Confidant.

Reyes, Jareed C. Duty to SocietyDuty to the Legal Profession

QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN SILVERIO-BUFFEA.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009

This is an administrative matter arising from a letter-query by Atty. Karen Silverio-Buffe.

Facts:This administrative matter started as a letter-query dated March 4, 2008 of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe (Atty. Buffe) addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator, which query the latter referred to the Court for consideration. In the course of its action on the matter, the Court discovered that the query was beyond pure policy interpretation and referred to the actual situation of Atty. Buffe, and, hence, was a matter that required concrete action on the factualsituation presented. The query, as originally framed, related to Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, as amended (or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). This provision places a limitation on public officials and employees during their incumbency, and those already separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the private practice of their profession. Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713. The query arose because Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81 of Romblon; she resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter (and within the one-year period of prohibition mentioned in the above-quoted provision), she engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC Branch 81 of Romblon.

Issue:Whether or not Atty. Buffe is liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling:Atty. Buffes admitted appearance, before the very same branch she served and immediately after her resignation, is a violation that we cannot close our eyes to and that she cannot run away from under the cover of the letter-query she filed and her petition for declaratory relief, whose dismissal she manifested she would pursue up to our level. We note that at the time she filed her letter-query (on March 4, 2008), Atty. Buffe had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least three (3) cases. The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 did not deter her in any way and her misgivings about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she committed. In other words, she took the risk of appearing before her own Branch and should suffer the consequences of the risk she took.Parenthetically, in the case of court employees, Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 is not the only prohibition to contend with; Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel also applies. In both the above discussed aspect of R.A. No. 6713 and the quoted Canon 3, the practice of law is covered; the practice of law is a practice of profession, while Canon 3 specifically mentions any outside employment requiring the practice of law. After separation from the service, Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel ceases to apply as it applies specifically to incumbents, but Section 7 and its subsection (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 continue to apply to the extent discussed above. Atty. Buffes situation falls under Section 7.A worrisome aspect of Atty. Buffes approach to Section 7 (b)(2) is her awareness of the law and her readiness to risk its violation because of the unfairness she perceives in the law. We find it disturbing that she first violated the law before making any inquiry. She also justifies her position by referring to the practice of other government lawyers known to her who, after separation from their judicial employment, immediately engaged in the private practice of law and appeared as private counsels before the RTC branches where they were previously employed. Again we find this a cavalier attitude on Atty. Buffes part and, to our mind, only emphasizes her own willful or intentional disregard of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands as unlawful, Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We also find that Atty. Buffe also failed to live up to her lawyers oath and thereby violated Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when she blatantly and unlawfully practised law within the prohibited period byappearing before the RTC Branch she had just left.

Adjudication:Premises considered, Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe guilty of professional misconduct for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is hereby fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), and sternly warned that a repetition of this violation and the commission of other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely.