EN BANC
ANA A.
CHUA AND
MARCELINA
HSIA,
Complainants,
A.C.
No.
4904
August 12, 2004
-versus-
ATTY.
SIMEON M.
MESINA, JR.,
Respondent.chanrobles virtual law library
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
By a verified Complaint[1]
received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on May 5, 1998[2]
Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively charged Atty.
Simeon
M. Mesina, Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional
misconduct,
and culpable malpractice.
As related by complainants,
the following facts gave rise to the filing of the complaint.cralaw:red
Respondent was, for
years, Ana Alvaran Chua and her now deceased husband Chua Yap An’s
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 respondent’s family, and another
property
containing an area of 854 sq. m., situated at Melencio Street,
Cabanatuan
City (Melencio property), also owned by respondent’s family whereon
they
(spouses Chua) constructed their house. These two properties were
mortgaged by the registered owner, respondent’s mother Felicisima
Melencio
vda. de Mesina (Mrs. Mesina), in favor of the Planters Development Bank
to secure a loan she obtained.chanrobles virtual law library
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.cralaw:red
Accommodating respondent’s
request, the spouses Chua and their business partner, herein
co-complainant
Marcelina Hsia, settled Mrs. Mesina’s bank obligation in the amount of
P983,125.40.cralaw:red
A Deed of Absolute Sale
dated January 19, 1985[3]
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.cralaw:red
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[4]
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.cralaw:red
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.chanrobles virtual law library
Complainants were subsequently
issued on January 21, 1986 a title over the Melencio property.cralaw:red
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[5]
dated February 20, 1986 before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutor’s Office
charging respondent’s 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 alleged that he was also a lessee of the Melencio
property
and was, along with the Chua spouses, supposed to purchase it but that
contrary to their agreement, the property was sold only to complainant
and her co-complainant, to his exclusion. Tecson went on to
relate
that the February 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale did not reflect the
true
value of the Melencio property and was antedated “to evade payment of
capital
gains tax.”
Tecson submitted documents
showing that indeed the July 9, 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale was
antedated.cralaw:red
Respondent thereupon
hatched a plan to dodge the falsification charge against Mrs. Mesina et
al. He proposed to complainants that they would simulate a deed
of
sale of the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell it to
Mrs.
Mesina.cralaw:red
Heeding the proposal
of respondent, complainants executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
April
1, 1986[6]
conveying to “Felicisima M. Melencio” the Melencio property for
P85,400.00.cralaw:red
A new title was accordingly
issued on April 4, 1986 in the name of “Felicisima M. Melencio,” the
owner’s
copy of which was entrusted to complainants.cralaw:red
Tecson subsequently
filed before the Cabanatuan City Prosecutor’s Office an Affidavit of
Desistance
dated September 5, 1986[7]
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.cralaw:red
Some years later or
on May 2, 1990, respondent approached complainants and told them that
he
would borrow the owner’s copy of Mrs. Mesina’s 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[8]
dated May 2, 1990 reading:chanrobles virtual law library
Received
the
owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 4383 issued by the Register of Deeds,
Cabanatuan City registered in the name of Felicisima Mesina, widow,
consisting
of about 854 square meters more or less located at calle Melencio,
Cabanatuan
City from Mrs. Ana Chua and Marcelina Hsia.
I promise to and
undertake
to have the Deed of Sale of the above-mentioned property in favor of
Ana
Chua and Marcelina Hsia to be signed by Mrs. Felicisima Mesina, within
four (4) months from date hereof so that the above-mentioned property
and
title maybe transferred in the name of Ana Chua and Macelina Hsia.
(Underscoring
supplied.)
In the meantime, Mrs.
Mesina
died “in the early part of 1991.”
Despite respondent’s
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.chanrobles virtual law library
The Spouses Chua and
complainant Marcelina Hsia thus filed on August 24, 1992 a Complaint[9]
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.”
As of the time of the
filing of the present administrative complaint in 1998, the civil case
against the Mesina siblings was still pending.cralaw:red
This Court, by Resolution
of July 13, 1998,[10]
directed respondent to file Comment on the complaint within ten days.cralaw:red
By resolution of December
2, 1998,[11]
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
The IBP, acting on the
Complaint, issued a notice of hearing on September 14, 2001,[12]
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.[13]
On the scheduled date of hearing, complainants personally appeared with
their counsel. Respondent failed to show up.chanrobles virtual law library
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,[14]
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.cralaw:red
In compliance with the
IBP Order, complainants filed on April 1, 2002 their position paper,[15]
annexed to which were photocopies of: 1) a May 5, 1993
Certification[16]
issued by the Metrobank Cabanatuan Branch certifying that “it issued
the
demand drafts to the payees enumerated below, which were debited from
the
account of Mr. Chua Yap An under Savings Account No. 760:
D/D
No.
Payee
Amount Date of Issuechanrobles virtual law library
214597
Planters Dev.
Bank
P 805,299.54 12-19-85chanrobles virtual law library
214760
Planters Dev.
Bank
100,000.00 01-14-86chanrobles virtual law library
214761
Atty. Simeon Mesina,
Jr.
77,826.10 01-14-86”;
(2) Affidavit
dated
February 18, 1986[17]
of respondent acknowledging a debt of P400,000.00 to complainant Ana
Alvaran
Chua and promising to pay interest thereon within 2 years to commence
upon
the signing thereof [February 16, 1998] and, in the event no partial or
full payment of the principal is made within 2 years, Ana Alvaran Chua
“is under no obligation to pay any lease rentals over the lot situated
in Burgos Avenue, Cabanatuan City where the Oceanic Hardware Bldg. is
erected;”
(3) Deed of
Absolute
Sale dated January 19, 1985[18]
and 4) Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 9, 1979,[19]
both executed by “Felicisima M. Melencio” in favor of
complainant;
5) TCT No. T-48114[20]
issued by the Cabanatuan City in the name of complainants on
January
21, 1986; 6) Affidavit of Juanito C. Tecson[21]
dated January 20, 1986 charging complainants et al. for Falsification
of
Public Documents; 7) Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1,
1986
executed by complainants in favor of Mrs. Mesina;[22]
and 8) TCT No. T-48383 issued on April 4, 1986 in the name
of “Felicisima M. Melencio;”[23]
and 9) Complaint of spouses Chua Yap An and Ana Alvaran Chua and
Marcelina Hsia, for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale and
Reconveyance
of Real Property against respondent and his two siblings.[24]
A copy of complainant’s
position paper was sent on March 18, 2002 to respondent at his office
address
by registered mail covered by Registry Receipt No. 5278.[25]
There is no showing if respondent received this mail matter.chanrobles virtual law library
The IBP once more scheduled,
by notice of December 13, 2002,[26]
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.[27]
On the scheduled hearing
on January 15, 2003, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, by Order of
even
date,[28]
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.cralaw:red
On June 21, 2003, the
IBP passed Resolution No. XV-2003-342[29]
adopting and approving the report and recommendation of Atty. Rebecca
Villanueva-Maala,
the Investigating Commissioner of the case.cralaw:red
In her March 3, 2003
Report and Recommendation,[30]
Investigation Commissioner Maala observed as follows:
A lawyer
should
not engage or participate on any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful
conduct. The moral character he displayed when he applied for
admission
at the Bar must be maintained incessantly. Otherwise, his
privilege
to practice the legal profession may be withdrawn from him (Rule 1.01,
Code of Professional Responsibility). On the basis of the
uncontroverted
facts and evidence presented, respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina has
committed
gross misconduct which shows him to be unfit for the office and
unworthy
of the privilege which his license and law confer upon him,
and recommended that
respondent
be suspended for a period of One (1) Year.chanrobles virtual law library
This Court finds that
indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.cralaw:red
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 owner’s copy of his mother’s 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.cralaw:red
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.chanrobles virtual law library
A propos is this Court’s
following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez:34
As a rule,
a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business
transaction
must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. The
measure
of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings
with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business
dealings where the parties trade at “arms length.” Business
transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged
by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions
to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client.
This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an
attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and
ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or
improbability
of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor.35
(Underscoring supplied.)
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
1.01.
- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful
conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
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.
CANON 7.
A
LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.chanrobles virtual law library
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.chanrobles virtual law library
CANON 15. A
LAWYER
SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS
WITH HIS CLIENTS.
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.
WHEREFORE, respondent
ATTY.
SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.
Let copies of this Decision
be furnished all courts, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Office of the Bar Confidant.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Davide,
C.J., Puno,
Quisumbing, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona, Callejo, Sr.,Tinga and Chico-Nazario,
JJ.
, concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 1.
[2]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 5-6; 17-18. The document shows that it was in 1985
that
it was executed and notarized. The complaint alleged, however,
that
the document was executed in 1986.
[4]
Id. at 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 8.
[6]
Id. at 10-11.
[7]
Id. at 12.
[8]
Id. at 15.
[9]
Id. at 48-57.
[10]
Id. at 16.
[11]
Id. at 19.
[12]
Id. at 22.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
Id. at 26-27.
[15]
Id. at 28-35.
[16]
Id. at 36.
[17]
Id. at 37.
[18]
Id. at 38-39.
[19]
Id. at 40.
[20]
Id. at 41.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Id. at 42-43; Vide note5.
[22]
Rollo at 44-45.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id. at 46-47.
[24]
Id. at 48-57.
[25]
Id. at 35.
[26]
Id. at 58.
[27]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
Id. at 60.
[29]
Id. at 64.
[30]
Id. at 65-67.chanrobles virtual law library
28*
Canon I, Code of Professional Responsibility.
29*
Rule 1.02.chanrobles virtual law library
30*
In re Rovero, 92 Phil. 128 (1952).
31*
Sabayle v. Tandayag, 158 SCRA 497 (1988).
32*
Rollo at 38.chanrobles virtual law library
33*
Rollo at 40.
34*
286 SCRA 758 (1998).
35*
Id. at 768, citations omitted.
36------------------chanrobles virtual law library
37*
Id.
______________________
*
these are the numbers
appearing in the text
chan
robles virtual law library |