Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

VDA. DE ESPINO V. PRESQUITO Rule 16.
04 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not borrow

money from his clients unless the client’s interests are fully protected
Facts: by the nature of the case or by independent advice
Respondent was introduced to complainant’s late husband, Mr.
Virgilio M. Espino. Mr. Espino, a resident of Davao City, had sought Held:
the assistance of respondent, a resident of Cagayan de Oro,
regarding the sale of his piece of land with an area of 11,057.59 It was incumbent upon respondent to prove a legal excuse or
sq.m. situated in Misamis Oriental. The discussion between Mr. defense for nonpayment of the eight checks. Respondent utterly
Espino and the respondent resulted in the sale of the property to failed in this regard.
respondent. Under the terms of the agreement between Mr. Espino
and respondent, the purchase price of the land was ₱1,437,410.00, The records show that respondent was unable to present evidence.
payable on a staggered basis and by installments. Pursuant to the Respondent’s own statements without corroborating evidence are
terms of payment in the agreement, respondent issued eight post- just self-serving allegations.
dated checks, totaling ₱736,060.00. Respondent then entered into a
joint venture or partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for Respondent claims that his failure to present evidence was due to
the subdivision of the land into home-size lots and its development, his financial difficulties, i.e., he could not afford to spend for travel
with a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own use. expenses of his witnesses. We are not persuaded. First, it boggles
The land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. the mind how financial constraints could have prevented
Ares, and subdivided into 35 to 36 lots. respondent from presenting the originals of the documents
attached to his comment, proving, among others, the alleged
The 8 checks of the respondent were dishonored. Respondent advances and costs on Mr. Espino’s behalf. The originals of
denied the allegations saying that: these documents are presumably in his possession. Second,
with respect to the absence of testimony, respondent could
- The nonpayment was justified by the unresolved issue with have submitted the affidavits of his witnesses - the taking of
regard to the right of way of the land which he could have done himself in Cagayan de Oro to keep
- Mr. Espino had made assurances that the land had a right- down the cost.
of-way required for its development, but respondent later
found out that such road-right-of-way required the consent of All these circumstances lead us to the ineluctable conclusion that
four other land owners, and the expense would be respondent could not present evidence because there really
considerably more than he was made to believe was none to justify his nonpayment.
- He and Mr. Espino had agreed that the latter would not
encash the checks or demand the equivalent of the same Even if we were to excuse respondent’s procedural lapse and
until the right-of-way problem of the land had been resolved. consider his written pleadings as testimony, we agree with
- he was entitled to set-off against the amount he owes Mr. Commissioner Dulay that respondent’s problems with respect to the
Espino or his heirs from the purchase of the land, the right-of-way or his partnership with Mrs. Ares do not excuse his
advances he made to Mr. Espino, and the cost he incurred nonpayment. This is because he took responsibility with regard to
when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case. such negotiations relating to the right of way.
Applicable law: Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored
checks, respondent’s indifference to complainant’s entreaties for
payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an
officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct
towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing the eight
(8) checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated
demands for payment until complainant was forced to file this
complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the disposition of this
case with dilatory tactics. Considering that the property of
complainant and her late husband is already in respondent and Mrs.
Ares’ name, the injustice of respondent’s different maneuvers to
evade payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since 1996 -
becomes more manifest.
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless

checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public
interest and public order.
Suspended for 1 year

Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VDA. DE ESPINO V. PRESQUITO Rule 16.

04 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not borrow

It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless

Suspended for 1 year

You might also like