Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Applicant Al C.Argosino
Issue: Whether Applicant Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath office and admit
him to the practice of law
Ruling: Yes, The Practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess
the strict, intellectual and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are
instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. Given the
fact that the Applicant had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the
required good moral character as required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and
to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that
he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. The petitioner is then allowed to take
the lawyer’s oath, sign the Roll of Attorney’s and thereafter to practice the legal
profession. He was reminded that the Lawyer’s oath is not merely ceremony or
formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions
according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s oath.
Issue: WON Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios violated Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, for representing conflicting interests.
FACTS: Felix Melegrito in his behalf and 230 other persons filed charges of
malpractice against Atty. Eusebio Barba.
The respondent denies having received the sum of P8,226 or any such sum, but
in his answer he admitted that he had received P2,185. The respondent alleges
that after examining the records of the land registration cases, which had already
been returned to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, he told the
complainants that the decision the court had already become final and could not
be appealed.
HELD: YES. He collected several thousand pesos from the complainants for the
purpose of taking their cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, but he
never removed said cases to that court or attempted to do so, because the
decision of this court had already become final and unappealable, and he was
guilty of deceit in concealing that fact from the complainants while collecting
fees from them for the purpose of prosecuting the appeal.
Although the decision have been final and unappealable when the complainants
consulted the respondent, he never so informed them, but on the contrary led
them to believe that the cases could be taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and that to prosecute the appeal to the best advantage it was necessary
for him to go to Washington. The receipts show that the respondent collected at
least P3,530 before he sailed for the United States; that the respondent wrote a
letter to Melegrito inquiring whether the voyage was to be made or not, and
urging Melegrito to advance P1,000 for the account of the respondent's compadre
in order to make up the agreed amount.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and
until he shall have repaid the complainants.
EN BANC
[A.C. No. 4904. August 12, 2004]
ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA, complainants, vs. ATTY. SIMEON M.
MESINA, JR., respondent.
Facts: Respondent was, for years, Ana Alvaran Chua and her now deceased
husband Chua Yap Ans legal counsel and adviser upon whom they reposed trust
and confidence. They were in fact lessees of a building situated at Burgos Street,
Cabanatuan City (Burgos property) owned by respondents family, and another
property containing an area of 854 sq. m., situated at Melencio Street,
Cabanatuan City (Melencio property), also owned by respondents family whereon
they (spouses Chua) constructed their house. These two properties were
mortgaged by the registered owner, respondents mother Felicisima Melencio vda.
de Mesina (Mrs. Mesina), in favor of the Planters Development Bank to secure a
loan she obtained.
As Mrs. Mesina failed to meet her obligation to the bank, respondent
convinced complainant Ana Chua and her husband to help Mrs. Mesina by way
of settling her obligation in consideration for which the Melencio property would
be sold to them at P850.00/sq. m.
Accommodating respondents request, the spouses Chua and their business
partner, herein co-complainant Marcelina Hsia, settled Mrs. Mesinas bank
obligation in the amount of P983,125.40.
A Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 19, 1985 conveying the Melencio
property for P85,400.00 was thereafter executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose name
appears therein as Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of complainants.
As complainants were later apprised of the amount of capital gains tax they
were to pay, they consulted respondent about it. Respondent thus suggested to
them that another Deed of Absolute Sale should be executed, antedated to 1979
before the effectivity of the law mandating the payment of capital gains tax. As
suggested by respondent, another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated February 9,
1979 was executed by Mrs. Mesina, whose name again appears therein as
Felicisima M. Melencio, in favor of complainants wherein the purchase price was
also indicated to be P85,400.00.
After liquidating the advances made by the Chua spouses in the redemption
of the MESINA properties, Mrs. Mesina was found to have an existing balance due
the spouses in the amount of P400,000.00, on account of which they advised
respondent about it. Respondent, by Affidavit of February 18, 1986,
acknowledged such obligation to be his and undertook to settle it within two
years.
Complainants were subsequently issued on January 21, 1986 a title over the
Melencio property.
Not long after the execution of the February 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale or
in February 1986, one Juanito Tecson (Tecson) filed an Affidavit dated February
20, 1986 before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutors Office charging respondents
mother, the spouses Chua, Marcelina Hsia and the two witnesses to the said Deed
of Absolute Sale, for Falsification of Public Document and violation of the
Internal Revenue Code. In his complaint affidavit Tecson submitted documents
showing that indeed the July 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale was antedated.
Respondent proposed to complainants that they would simulate a deed of
sale of the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell it to Mrs.
Mesina.
Heeding the proposal of respondent, complainants executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1986 conveying to Felicisima M. Melencio the
Melencio property for P85,400.00.
Tecson subsequently filed before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutors Office an
Affidavit of Desistance dated September 5, 1986 alleging that his filing of the
criminal complaint arose out of mere misunderstanding and difference with
herein complainants and their co-respondents and he had no sufficient evidence
against them.
Some years later or on May 2, 1990, respondent approached complainants
and told them that he would borrow the owners copy of Mrs. Mesinas title with
the undertaking that he would, in four months, let Mrs. Mesina execute a deed of
sale over the Melencio property in complainants favor. In fact, respondent gave
complainants a written undertaking
In the meantime, Mrs. Mesina died in the early part of 1991.
Despite respondents repeated promises to effect the transfer of title in
complainants name, he failed to do so. Complainants were later informed that
the Melencio property was being offered for sale to the public.
The spouses Chua and complainant Marcelina Hsia thus filed on August 24,
1992 a Complaint against respondent and his two siblings before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija in Cabanatuan City, for Declaration of Nullity of
Sale and Reconveyance of Real Property.
By Resolution of December 2, 1998, this Court, noting that the copy of the
Resolution of July 13, 1998 requiring respondent to comment on the complaint
sent to him at his office address at S. M. Mesina Law Office, 30 Jupiter St., Paseo
de Roxas, Bel-Air Subd., Makati City was returned unserved with the notation
Moved, considered the Resolution of July 13, 1998 served on respondent by
substituted service pursuant to Rule 13, Section 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Respondent was accordingly deemed to have waived the filing of the
required comment.
By the same Resolution of December 2, 1998, the case was referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety days.
The IBP, acting on the complaint, issued a notice of hearing on September 14,
2001, copy of which was sent to respondent at his office address via registered
mail, covered by Registry Receipt No. 2605 of the Meralco Post Office. On the
scheduled date of hearing, complainants personally appeared with their
counsel. Respondent failed to show up.
Given the length of time that the case remained pending from its filing, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, by Order of October 12, 2001, directed
complainants to just file their position paper with affidavits and supporting
documents in lieu of actual presentation of witnesses and to serve a copy thereof
to respondent at his last known address.
A copy of complainants position paper was sent on March 18, 2002 to
respondent at his office address by registered mail covered by Registry Receipt
No. 5278. There is no showing if respondent received this mail matter.
The IBP once more scheduled, by notice of December 13, 2002, a hearing of
the administrative case to January 15, 2003, copy of which notice was sent to
respondent at his office address by registered mail covered by Registry Receipt
No. 2953 issued by the Meralco Post Office. On the scheduled hearing on January
15, 2003, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, by Order of even date, noted the
presence of complainants, and the absence of respondent, copy of the notice of
hearing to whom was returned unserved with the notation RTS-Moved. The case
was thereupon deemed submitted for report and recommendation.
Issue: Whether Atty. Mesina is guilty of gross misconduct?
and recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of One (1) Year.
This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.
First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale
antedated to 1979 to evade payment of capital gains taxes, he violated his duty
to promote respect for law and legal processes,28 and not to abet activities aimed
at defiance of the law;29 That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a
private party but the government is aggravating.30
Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another
document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale wherein they made it appear that
complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.31
Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua
spouses, into turning over to him the owners copy of his mothers title upon the
misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale executed
by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.
That the signature of Felicisima M. Melencio in the 1985 document32 and that
in the 1979 document33 are markedly different is in fact is a badge of falsification
of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.
Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of the
Melencio property to complainants, consideration of whether he should be
ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed for the
purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the case at bar is
moral fitness.37
In fine, respondent violated his oath of office and, more specifically, the
following canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF
THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.02. - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in
a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
and the principles of fairness.
CANON 17. A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE
SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
FACTS:
Respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from
complainant Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from date, plus interest
of 5% per month. To guarantee the payment of said obligation, respondent
executed a Promissory Note. After the lapse of six months, and despite
repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid that she will
not recover her money, complainant sought the help of the IBP, which referred
the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be disciplined for failing to meet her
financial obligation, incurred in her private capacity.
HELD:
We agree with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined
either by the IBP or by this Court for failing to pay her obligation to
complainant. Complainant's remedy is to file a collection case before a regular
court of justice against respondent. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be
suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction
to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity.
It was, however, still necessary for respondent to acknowledge the orders of the
Commission in deference to its authority over her as a member of the IBP. Her
wanton disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary sanction.
Thus, her suspension from the practice of law for one month is warranted.
DOCTRINES:
The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the
court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct
in his non-professional or private capacity.
We do not, of course, ignore the fact that by virtue of one's membership in the
IBP, a lawyer thus submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the
organization.
FACTS: Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law
Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases.
Owing to his growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire respondent
as his personal counsel.
Consequently, respondent's relationship with complainant's family became
intimate. He traveled and dined with them abroad. 2 He frequented their house
and even tutored complainant's 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco
(Lisa), then a student of Assumption Convent.
HELD: The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
abuse of confidence. It was respondent's closeness to the complainant's family
as well as the latter's complete trust in him that made possible his intimate
relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be complainant's legal
affairs only, he sneaked at the latter's back and courted his daughter. Like the
proverbial thief in the night, he attacked when nobody was looking. Moreover, he
availed of complainant's resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant's
office in order to marry the latter's daughter in Hongkong. He did this without
complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure
complainant that "everything is legal." Clearly, respondent had crossed the limits
of propriety and decency.
Note: The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its
members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed
in the lawyer's professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer
may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere
citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private
life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and
prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of
inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.