Title

Herdez vs. Go

Case Ponente Decision Date

A.C. No. 1526 PER CURIAM Jan 31, 2005

A lawyer is disbarred for acquiring his client's properties and using his own
funds to pay her creditors, violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

EN BANC

A.C. No. 1526. January 31, 2005.

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR.,

complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM p:

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. CTEacH
 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. ICTHDE

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, 1961 regarding 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. SCHcaT

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.
TIDaCE

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 Busi os vs. Ricafort, 14 an attorney was
stripped of his license to practice law for misappropriating his client's money. acADIT

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.