NAZARIA
S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY
LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR.,
Complainant,
-versus-
A.C.
No. 1526
January
31, 2005
ATTY. JOSE C. GO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
For
our Resolution is the verified letter-complaint[1] for disbarment
against Atty. Jose C. Go dated June 23, 1975 filed by Nazaria S.
Hernandez (now deceased). Both parties are from Zamboanga City.
The
allegations in the letter-complaint are:
Sometime
in 1961, complainant’s husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, Jr. Shortly thereafter, her husband’s numerous
creditors demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the
various mortgage contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed
and aware of impending suits for sums of money against her, complainant
engaged the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent.
Respondent
instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear,
embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to give him
her land titles covering Lots 848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City
so he could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then
persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any
monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant agreed on condition
that he would sell the lots and from the proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant
also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A, likewise located in Zamboanga
City, which were mortgaged to her creditors. When the mortgages
fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced her
to execute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a
result, respondent became the registered owner of all the lots
belonging to complainant.
Sometime
in 1974, complainant came to know that respondent did not sell her lots
as agreed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors with his own funds
and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her
real properties worth millions.
In our
Resolution dated September 24, 1975, respondent was required to file
his comment on the complaint.
Instead
of filing his comment, respondent submitted a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the complaint is premature since there is pending before
the then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City Civil Case No.
1781[2] for recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of deeds
of sale filed by complainant against him involving the subject lots.
On
November 14, 1975, we issued a Resolution denying respondent’s motion
and requiring him to submit his answer.
In his
answer dated December 19, 1975, respondent denied the allegations in
the instant complaint. He averred that he sold, in good faith,
complainant’s lots to various buyers, including himself, for valuable
consideration. On several occasions, he extended financial
assistance to complainant and even invited her to live with his
family. His children used to call her “Lola” due to her frequent
visits to his residence. He prayed that the complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
On
January 17, 1977, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
It was
only on March 13, 1990 or after 13 years, 1 month and 26 days that the
OSG filed a motion to refer the instant case to the IBP for the
retaking of the testimonies of complainant’s witnesses and the
submission of its report and recommendation.
On
April 4, 1990, we issued a Resolution referring the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation.
The
Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2004 of Atty. Lydia A.
Navarro, Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, is
quoted as follows:
“A careful
examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by the parties
showed that all the properties of the complainant are presently owned
by the respondent by virtue of several deeds of sale executed by the
complainant in favor of the respondent without monetary consideration
except Lot 849-D situated in Tomas Claudio which was returned by the
respondent to the complainant on September 5, 1974.
It is
evident from the records that respondent was the one who notarized the
documents involving the said properties redeemed or repurchased by the
complainant from her creditors which ended up in respondent’s name like
in the deed of sale executed by Victoriano Dejerano in favor of Nazaria
Hernandez over Lots 1141-A-3-A and 1141-A-3-B; deed of sale executed by
Antonio Masrahon on September 3, 1961regarding Lot No. 1141-A; deed of
absolute sale executed by Francisco Esperat over the Curuan properties
on November 9, 1971 and the cancellation of the mortgage executed by
Alfonso Enriquez on July 18, 1964 over the Tomas Claudio properties.
The
foregoing legal activities and operations of the respondent in addition
to his having discussed, advised and gave solutions to complainant’s
legal problems and liabilities to her creditors and even requested her
creditors for extension of time to pay complainant’s accounts
constitute practice of law as legal counsel for consultation aside from
representing complainant in other cases; a mute proof of a
lawyer-client relations between them, a fact also admitted by the
respondent.
It is
incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report to the
complainant on how he paid complainant’s creditors without selling her
properties. Instead of selling to buyers at higher price, he paid
them out of his own funds; then later on admitted that he was one of
the purchasers of complainant’s properties in utter disregard of their
agreement and no evidence was submitted by the respondent concerning
the value of the said sale of complainant’s properties.
As
such, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his
obligation and duty as complainant’s legal adviser and counsel when he
took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the
complainant in ultimately putting complainant’s properties in his name
and possession in violation of Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
respondent Atty. Jose C. Go be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months from receipt hereof and the IBP Chapter where
he is a registered member be furnished a copy of the same for
implementation hereof, subject to the approval of the Honorable Members
of the Board of Governors.”
On
July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
XVI-2004-39 adopting and approving the Report of Commissioner Navarro
with modification in the sense that the recommended penalty of
suspension from the practice of law was increased from six (6) months
to three (3) years.
We
sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors finding that
respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
However, we have to modify its recommended penalty.
Canon
16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the principal source of
ethical rules for lawyers in this jurisdiction, provides:
“A lawyer shall
hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come
into his possession.”
Respondent
breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for himself
complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any standard, acts
constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden act, a
dereliction in duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not mere error in judgment.[3] Such conduct on the
part of respondent degrades not only himself but also the name and
honor of the legal profession. He violated this Court’s mandate
that lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their
dealing with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[4]
Canon
17 of the same Code states:
“A lawyer owes
fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him.”
The
records show that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and
confidence in herein respondent, that when she engaged his services,
she entrusted to him her land titles and allowed him to sell her lots,
believing that the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her
creditors. Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence
when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and spent
his own money to pay her obligations. As correctly observed by
Investigating IBP Commissioner Lydia Navarro, respondent is duty-bound
to render a detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold the
latter’s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors. Obviously,
had he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could have earned
more. Records show that she did not receive any amount from
respondent. Clearly, respondent did not adhere faithfully and
honestly in his duty as complainant’s counsel.
Undoubtedly,
respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal
profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he
engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral
acts. We have been exacting in our demand for integrity and good
moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all
times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[5]
and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the legal profession.[6] Membership in the legal
profession is a privilege.[7] And whenever it is made to appear that an
attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients
and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this
Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of
ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[8] Respondent,
by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the
Bar, but also the legal profession.
Public
interest requires that an attorney should exert his best efforts and
ability to protect the interests of his clients. A lawyer who
performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects his
client’s cause; he also serves the ends of justice and does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.
It is
a time-honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the legal profession.[9]
Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may
be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts:
(1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4)
grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience
of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as
an attorney for a party without authority to do so.[10]
In
Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[11] we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when he
deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money
and later refused to return the same despite demand. In Navarro
vs. Meneses III,[12] we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal
or failure to account for the P50,000.00 he received from a client to
settle a case. In Docena vs. Limson,[13] we expelled from
the brotherhood of lawyers, an attorney who extorted money from his
client through deceit and misrepresentation. In Busiños
vs. Ricafort,[14] an attorney was stripped of his license to practice
law for misappropriating his client’s money.
Considering
the depravity of respondent’s offense, we find the penalty recommended
by the IBP too light. It bears reiterating that a lawyer who
takes advantage of his client’s financial plight to acquire the
latter’s properties for his own benefit is destructive of the
confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the
legal profession. Thus, for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross
misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards
of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal
profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion
from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.
WHEREFORE,
respondent JOSE S. GO is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
DISBARRED from the practice of law. His name is ordered STRICKEN
from the Roll of Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Let
copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and all courts throughout the country.
SO
ORDERED.
Davide,
Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario
and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Callejo,
Sr., J., on official leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 25-26.
[2] On
January 19, 1990, Civil Case No. 1781 was decided by the Regional Trial
Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 15, against the respondent. The Deeds
of Sale executed in favor of respondent covering Lots 848-A-1, Lots
849-P and 849-Q, Lots 2118 and 2129, Lots 1141-A and B were declared
null and void for being simulated. The certificates of title issued in
the names of the respondent and his children were ordered cancelled and
respondent was ordered to reconvey the properties and all the
improvements thereon to the complainant (Records, Vol. III, pp.
75-114). On appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 27310, the Appellate
Court rendered its Decision affirming with modification the trial
court’s judgment (Records, Vol. III, pp. 150-179).
[3]
Whitson vs. Atienza, A.C. No. 5535, August 28, 2003, 410 SCRA 10, 15,
citing Osop vs. Fontanilla, 365 SCRA 398 (2001).
[4]
Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017,
September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406, 417, citing Resurrecion vs. Sayson,
300 SCRA 129 (1998).
[5]
Sipin-Nabor vs. Baterina, A.C. No. 4073, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 6;
Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, March 24, 2003, citing
Tapucar vs. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 74 (1998).
[6]
Manalang, et al. vs. Atty. Francisco F. Angeles, supra, citing Maligsa
vs. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997).
[7]
Lao vs. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, citing Dumadag vs. Lumaya,
334 SCRA 513 (2000), Arrieta vs. Llosa, 346 Phil. 932 (1997), NBI vs.
Reyes, 326 SCRA 109 (2000); Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra.
[8]
Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra, citing In Re: Almacen, No.
L-27654, 31 SCRA 562, 601-602 (1970); In Re:Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24
(1920); In Re: Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 549 (1918).
[9]
People vs. Tuned, 181 SCRA 692 (1990); Lead vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395
(1992).
[10]Re:
Administrative Case Against Atty. Occeña, 433 Phil. 138, 155
(2002)
[11]
A.M. No. 2884, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 93.
[12]
CBD Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 586.
[13]
A.C. No. 2387, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 262.
[14]
A.C. No. 4349, December 22, 1997, 283 SCRA 407.
|