Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 1526 January 31, 2005
NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ DECEASED!, SU"STITUTED "# $UCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant,
vs.
ATT#. JOSE C. %O, respondent.
D E C I I ! N
PER CURIAM:
"or our resolution is the verified letter#complaint
$
for disbarment a%ainst Att&. 'ose C. (o dated 'une )*, $+,- filed b& Na.aria .
/ernande. 0no1 deceased2. Both parties are from 3amboan%a Cit&.
4he alle%ations in the letter#complaint are5
ometime in $+6$, complainant7s husband abandoned her and her son, 8uciano . /ernande., 'r. hortl& thereafter, her husband7s
numerous creditors demanded pa&ments of his loans. "earful that the various mort%a%e contracts involvin% her properties 1ill be
foreclosed and a1are of impendin% suits for sums of mone& a%ainst her, complainant en%a%ed the le%al services of Att&. 'ose C. (o,
herein respondent.
Respondent instilled in complainant a feelin% of helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. /e advised her to %ive him
her land titles coverin% 8ots 9:9#A, 9:+#;, and 9:+#P at 3amboan%a Cit& so he could sell them to enable her to pa& her creditors. /e
then persuaded her to e<ecute deeds of sale in his favor 1ithout an& monetar& or valuable consideration. Complainant a%reed on
condition that he 1ould sell the lots and from the proceeds pa& her creditors.
Complainant also o1ned 8ots )$$9, )$*+, and $$:$#A, li=e1ise located in 3amboan%a Cit&, 1hich 1ere mort%a%ed to her creditors.
>hen the mort%a%es fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. A%ain, he convinced her to e<ecute deeds of sale involvin% those lots in
his favor. As a result, respondent became the re%istered o1ner of all the lots belon%in% to complainant.
ometime in $+,:, complainant came to =no1 that respondent did not sell her lots as a%reed upon. Instead, he paid her creditors 1ith
his o1n funds and had her land titles re%istered in his name, deprivin% her of her real properties 1orth millions.1a\^/phi1.net
In our Resolution dated eptember ):, $+,-, respondent 1as re?uired to file his comment on the complaint.
Instead of filin% his comment, respondent submitted a motion to dismiss on the %round that the complaint is premature since there is
pendin% before the then Court of "irst Instance of 3amboan%a Cit& Civil Case No. $,9$
)
for recover& of o1nership and declaration of
nullit& of deeds of sale filed b& complainant a%ainst him involvin% the sub@ect lots.
!n November $:, $+,-, 1e issued a Resolution den&in% respondent7s motion and re?uirin% him to submit his ans1er.
In his ans1er dated December $+, $+,-, respondent denied the alle%ations in the instant complaint. /e averred that he sold, in %ood
faith, complainant7s lots to various bu&ers, includin% himself, for valuable consideration. !n several occasions, he e<tended financial
assistance to complainant and even invited her to live 1ith his famil&. /is children used to call her A8olaA due to her fre?uent visits to
his residence. /e pra&ed that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
!n 'anuar& $,, $+,,, 1e referred the case to the !ffice of the olicitor (eneral 0!(2 for investi%ation, report, and recommendation.
It 1as onl& on March $*, $++B or after $* &ears, $ month and )6 da&s that the !( filed a motion to refer the instant case to the IBP
for the reta=in% of the testimonies of complainant7s 1itnesses and the submission of its report and recommendation.
!n April :, $++B, 1e issued a Resolution referrin% the case to the IBP for investi%ation, report, and recommendation.
4he Report and Recommendation dated 'une $-, )BB: of Att&. 8&dia A. Navarro, Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline, is ?uoted as follo1s5
AA careful e<amination and evaluation of the evidence submitted b& the parties sho1ed that all the properties of the complainant are
presentl& o1ned b& the respondent b& virtue of several deeds of sale e<ecuted b& the complainant in favor of the respondent 1ithout
monetar& consideration e<cept 8ot 9:+#D situated in 4omas Claudio 1hich 1as returned b& the respondent to the complainant on
eptember -, $+,:.
It is evident from the records that respondent 1as the one 1ho notari.ed the documents involvin% the said properties redeemed or
repurchased b& the complainant from her creditors 1hich ended up in respondent7s name li=e in the deed of sale e<ecuted b&
Cictoriano De@erano in favor of Na.aria /ernande. over 8ots $$:$#A#*#A and $$:$#A#*#BD deed of sale e<ecuted b& Antonio
Masrahon on eptember *, $+6$re%ardin% 8ot No. $$:$#AD deed of absolute sale e<ecuted b& "rancisco Esperat over the Curuan
properties on November +, $+,$ and the cancellation of the mort%a%e e<ecuted b& Alfonso Enri?ue. on 'ul& $9, $+6: over the 4omas
Claudio properties.
4he fore%oin% le%al activities and operations of the respondent in addition to his havin% discussed, advised and %ave solutions to
complainant7s le%al problems and liabilities to her creditors and even re?uested her creditors for e<tension of time to pa&
complainant7s accounts constitute practice of la1 as le%al counsel for consultation aside from representin% complainant in other casesD
a mute proof of a la1&er#client relations bet1een them, a fact also admitted b& the respondent.
It is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report to the complainant on ho1 he paid complainant7s creditors
1ithout sellin% her properties. Instead of sellin% to bu&ers at hi%her price, he paid them out of his o1n fundsD then later on admitted
that he 1as one of the purchasers of complainant7s properties in utter disre%ard of their a%reement and no evidence 1as submitted b&
the respondent concernin% the value of the said sale of complainant7s properties.
As such, respondent did not adhere faithfull& and honestl& in his obli%ation and dut& as complainant7s le%al adviser and counsel 1hen
he too= advanta%e of the trust and confidence reposed in him b& the complainant in ultimatel& puttin% complainant7s properties in his
name and possession in violation of Canon 1& o' ()* Co+* o' Pro'*,,-ona. R*,/on,-0-.-(y.
>/ERE"!RE, in vie1 of the fore%oin%, the undersi%ned respectfull& recommends that respondent Att&. 'ose C. (o be suspended
from the practice of la1 for a period of si< 062 months from receipt hereof and the IBP Chapter 1here he is a re%istered member be
furnished a cop& of the same for implementation hereof, sub@ect to the approval of the /onorable Members of the Board of
(overnors.A
!n 'ul& *B, )BB:, the IBP Board of (overnors passed Resolution No. ECI#)BB:#*+ adoptin% and approvin% the Report of
Commissioner Navarro 1ith modification in the sense that the recommended penalt& of suspension from the practice of la1 1as
increased from si< 062 months to three 0*2 &ears.
>e sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of (overnors findin% that respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibilit&.l^vvphi1.net /o1ever, 1e have to modif& its recommended penalt&.1a\^/phi1.net
Canon $6 of the Code of Professional Responsibilit&, the principal source of ethical rules for la1&ers in this @urisdiction, provides5
1A .a2y*r ,)a.. )o.+ -n (ru,( a.. 3on*y, an+ /ro/*r(-*, o' )-, 4.-*n( ()a( 3ay 4o3* -n(o )-, /o,,*,,-on.1
Respondent breached this Canon. /is acts of ac?uirin% for himself complainant7s lots entrusted to him are, b& an& standard, acts
constitutin% %ross misconduct, a %rievous 1ron%, a forbidden act, a dereliction in dut&, 1illful in character, and implies a 1ron%ful
intent and not mere error in @ud%ment.
*
uch conduct on the part of respondent de%rades not onl& himself but also the name and honor
of the le%al profession. /e violated this Court7s mandate that la1&ers must at all times conduct themselves, especiall& in their dealin%
1ith their clients and the public at lar%e, 1ith honest& and inte%rit& in a manner be&ond reproach.
:

Canon $, of the same Code states5
1A .a2y*r o2*, '-+*.-(y (o ()* 4au,* o' )-, 4.-*n( an+ )* ,)a.. 0* 3-n+'u. o' ()* (ru,( an+ 4on'-+*n4* r*/o,*+ -n )-3.1
4he records sho1 that complainant reposed such hi%h de%ree of trust and confidence in herein respondent, that 1hen she en%a%ed his
services, she entrusted to him her land titles and allo1ed him to sell her lots, believin% that the proceeds thereof 1ould be used to pa&
her creditors. Respondent, ho1ever, abused her trust and confidence 1hen he did not sell her properties to others but to himself and
spent his o1n mone& to pa& her obli%ations. As correctl& observed b& Investi%atin% IBP Commissioner 8&dia Navarro, respondent is
dut&#bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on ho1 much he sold the latter7s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors.
!bviousl&, had he sold the lots to other bu&ers, complainant could have earned more. Records sho1 that she did not receive an&
amount from respondent. Clearl&, respondent did not adhere faithfull& and honestl& in his dut& as complainant7s counsel.
Fndoubtedl&, respondent7s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the le%al profession. /e has definitel& fallen belo1 the moral bar
1hen he en%a%ed in deceitful, dishonest, unla1ful and %rossl& immoral acts. >e have been e<actin% in our demand for inte%rit& and
%ood moral character of members of the Bar. 4he& are e<pected at all times to uphold the inte%rit& and di%nit& of the le%al profession
-

and refrain from an& act or omission 1hich mi%ht lessen the trust and confidence reposed b& the public in the fidelit&, honest&, and
inte%rit& of the le%al profession.
6
Membership in the le%al profession is a privile%e.
,
And 1henever it is made to appear that an
attorne& is no lon%er 1orth& of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not onl& the ri%ht but also the dut& of
this Court, 1hich made him one of its officers and %ave him the privile%e of ministerin% 1ithin its Bar, to 1ithdra1 the privile%e.
9

Respondent, b& his conduct, blemished not onl& his inte%rit& as a member of the Bar, but also the le%al profession.
Public interest re?uires that an attorne& should e<ert his best efforts and abilit& to protect the interests of his clients. A la1&er 1ho
performs that dut& 1ith dili%ence and candor not onl& protects his client7s causeD he also serves the ends of @ustice and does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the communit& to the le%al profession.
It is a time#honored rule that %ood moral character is not onl& a condition precedent to admission to the practice of la1. Its continued
possession is also essential for remainin% in the le%al profession.
+

ection ),, Rule $*9 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a la1&er ma& be disbarred or suspended b& this Court for an& of the
follo1in% acts5 0$2 deceitD 0)2 malpracticeD 0*2 5ro,, 3-,4on+u4( -n o''-4*D 0:2 %rossl& immoral conductD 0-2 conviction of a crime
involvin% moral turpitudeD 062 violation of the la1&er7s oathD 0,2 1illful disobedience of an& la1ful order of a superior courtD and 092
1illfull& appearin% as an attorne& for a part& 1ithout authorit& to do so.
$B

In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos ,
$$
1e ordered the disbarment of la1&er 1hen he deceived his 9-#&ear old aunt into entrustin% him 1ith all
her mone& and later refused to return the same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses III ,
$)
1e disbarred a member of the Bar for
his refusal or failure to account for the P-B,BBB.BB he received from a client to settle a case. In Docena vs. Limson ,
$*
1e e<pelled from
the brotherhood of la1&ers, an attorne& 1ho e<torted mone& from his client throu%h deceit and misrepresentation. In Bsi!os vs.
Rica"ort ,
$:
an attorne& 1as stripped of his license to practice la1 for misappropriatin% his client7s mone&.
Considerin% the depravit& of respondent7s offense, 1e find the penalt& recommended b& the IBP too li%ht. It bears reiteratin% that a
la1&er 1ho ta=es advanta%e of his client7s financial pli%ht to ac?uire the latter7s properties for his o1n benefit is destructive of the
confidence of the public in the fidelit&, honest&, and inte%rit& of the le%al profession. 4hus, for violation of Canon $6 and Canon $, of
the Code of Professional Responsibilit&, 1hich constitutes %ross misconduct, and consistent 1ith the need to maintain the hi%h
standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the le%al profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalt&, that of
e<pulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of la1&ers.
6HERE7ORE, respondent '!E . (! is found %uilt& of %ross misconduct and is DIBARRED from the practice of la1. /is name
is ordered 4RICGEN from the Roll of Attorne&s E""EC4ICE IMMEDIA4E8H.
8et copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar Confidant, the Inte%rated Bar of the Philippines and all courts throu%hout the countr&.
! !RDERED.
Davide, 'r., C.'., Puno, Pan%aniban, ;uisumbin%, Hnares#antia%o, andoval#(utierre., Carpio, Austria#Martine., Corona, Carpio#
Morales, A.cuna, 4in%a, Chico#Na.ario and (arcia, ''., concur.
Calle@o, r., '., on official leave.
7oo(no(*,
$
Rollo, pp. )-#)6.
)
!n 'anuar& $+, $++B, Civil Case No. $,9$ 1as decided b& the Re%ional 4rial Court of 3amboan%a Cit&, Branch $-, a%ainst
the respondent. 4he Deeds of ale e<ecuted in favor of respondent coverin% 8ots 9:9#A#$, 8ots 9:+#P and 9:+#;, 8ots )$$9
and )$)+, 8ots $$:$#A and B 1ere declared null and void for bein% simulated. 4he certificates of title issued in the names of
the respondent and his children 1ere ordered cancelled and respondent 1as ordered to reconve& the properties and all the
improvements thereon to the complainant 0Records, Col. III, pp. ,-#$$:2. !n appeal, doc=eted as CA#(.R. CC No. ),*$B,
the Appellate Court rendered its Decision affirmin% 1ith modification the trial court7s @ud%ment 0Records, Col. III, pp. $-B#
$,+2.
*
#hitson vs. $tien%a& $.'. No. (()( , Au%ust )9, )BB*, :$B CRA $B, $-, citin% Osop vs. *ontanilla , *6- CRA *+9 0)BB$2.
:
+atchalian ,romotions -alent ,ool& Inc. vs. Nal.o%a& $.'. No. /011 , eptember )+, $+++, *$- CRA :B6, :$,, citin%
Resrrecion vs. 2ayson , *BB CRA $)+ 0$++92.
-
2ipin-Nabor vs. Baterina& $.'. No. /01) , 'une )9, )BB$, *6B CRA 6D 3sta4io& et al. vs. Rimorin& $.'. No. (051 , March
):, )BB*, citin% -apcar vs. -apcar, *-- Phil. 66, ,: 0$++92.
6
Manalan6, et al. vs. $tty. *rancisco *. $n6eles& spra& citin% Mali6sa vs. 'abantin6 ,),) CRA :B9, :$* 0$++,2.
,
Lao vs. Me.el& $.'. No. (718 , 'ul& $, )BB*, citin% Dma.a6 vs. Lmaya , **: CRA -$* 0)BBB2, $rrieta vs. Llosa, *:6
Phil. +*) 0$++,2, NBI vs. Reyes , *)6 CRA $B+ 0)BBB2D 3sta4io, et al. vs. Rimorin& spra.
9
3sta4io, et al. vs. Rimorin& spra& citin% In Re9 $lmacen& No. 8#),6-:, *$ CRA -6), 6B$#6B) 0$+,B2D In Re9,araiso& :$
Phil. ): 0$+)B2D In Re9 2otto& *9 Phil. -*), -:+ 0$+$92.
+
,eople vs. -ne.& $9$ CRA 6+) 0$++B2D Lea. vs. -aban6& )B6 CRA *+- 0$++)2.
$B
Re9 $.ministrative 'ase $6ainst $tty. Occe!a& :** Phil. $*9, $-- 0)BB)2
$$
A.M. No. )99:, 'anuar& )9, $++9, )9- CRA +*.
$)
CBD Adm. Case No. *$*, 'anuar& *B, $++9, )9- CRA -96.
$*
A.C. No. )*9,, eptember $B, $++9, )+- CRA )6).
$:
A.C. No. :*:+, December )), $++,, )9* CRA :B,.