nazaria hernandez vs atty jose go

5/24/2018 Nazaria Hernandez vs Atty Jose Go

1/5

A.C. No. 1526 January 31, 2005

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED B

!UCIAN" S. HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant,

vs.

ATT. J"SE C. #",respondent.

For our resolution is the verified letter-complaint1for disbarment against

Atty. Jose C. Go dated June 2, 1!"# filed by $a%aria &. 'ernande% (no)

deceased*. +oth parties are from amboanga City.

he allegations in the letter-complaint are

&ometime in 1!/1, complainant0s husband abandoned her and her son,

uciano &. 'ernande%, Jr. &hortly thereafter, her husband0s numerous

creditors demanded payments of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage

contracts involving her properties )ill be foreclosed and a)are of impending

suits for sums of money against her, complainant engaged the legal services

of Atty. Jose C. Go, herein respondent.

espondent instilled in complainant a feeling of helplessness, fear,

embarrassment, and social humiliation. 'e advised her to give him her land

titles covering ots 343-A, 34!-5, and 34!-6 at amboanga City so he

could sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. 'e then persuaded her toe7ecute deeds of sale in his favor )ithout any monetary or valuable

consideration. Complainant agreed on condition that he )ould sell the lots

and from the proceeds pay her creditors.

Complainant also o)ned ots 2113, 21!, and 1141-A, li8e)ise located in

amboanga City, )hich )ere mortgaged to her creditors. 9hen the

mortgages fell due, respondent redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced her

to e7ecute deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,

respondent became the registered o)ner of all the lots belonging to

complainant.

&ometime in 1!"4, complainant came to 8no) that respondent did not sell

her lots as agreed upon. :nstead, he paid her creditors )ith his o)n funds

and had her land titles registered in his name, depriving her of her real

properties )orth millions.1a\^/phi1.net

:n our esolution dated &eptember 24, 1!"#, respondent )as re;uired to file

his comment on the complaint.

:nstead 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 :nstance of amboanga City Civil Case $o. 1"312for

recovery of o)nership and declaration of nullity of deeds of sale filed by

complainant against him involving the sub


2/5

=n $ovember 14, 1!"#, )e issued a esolution denying respondent0s

motion and re;uiring him to submit his ans)er.

:n his ans)er dated >ecember 1!, 1!"#, respondent denied the allegations in

the instant complaint. 'e averred that he sold, in good faith, complainant0s

lots to various buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. =n

several occasions, he e7tended financial assistance to complainant and even

invited her to live )ith his family. 'is children used to call her ?ola? due to

her fre;uent visits to his residence. 'e prayed that the complaint be

dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

=n January 1", 1!"", )e referred the case to the =ffice of the &olicitor

General (=&G* for investigation, report, and recommendation.

:t )as only on @arch 1, 1!! or after 1 years, 1 month and 2/ days that

the =&G filed a motion to refer the instant case to the :+6 for the reta8ing of

the testimonies of complainant0s )itnesses and the submission of its report

and recommendation.

=n April 4, 1!!, )e issued a esolution referring the case to the :+6 for

investigation, report, and recommendation.

he eport and ecommendation dated June 1#, 24 of Atty. ydia A.

$avarro, Commissioner of the :+6 Commission on +ar >iscipline, is ;uotedas follo)s

?A careful e7amination and evaluation of the evidence submitted by the

parties sho)ed that all the properties of the complainant are presently o)ned

by the respondent by virtue of several deeds of sale e7ecuted by the

complainant in favor of the respondent )ithout monetary consideration

e7cept ot 34!-> situated in omas Claudio )hich )as returned by the

respondent to the complainant on &eptember #, 1!"4.

:t is evident from the records that respondent )as the one )ho notari%ed thedocuments involving the said properties redeemed or repurchased by the

complainant from her creditors )hich ended up in respondent0s name li8e in

the deed of sale e7ecuted by Bictoriano >e


3/5

cases a mute proof of a la)yer-client relations bet)een them, a fact also

admitted by the respondent.

:t is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a detailed report to the

complainant on ho) he paid complainant0s creditors )ithout selling her

properties. :nstead of selling to buyers at higher price, he paid them out of

his o)n funds then later on admitted that he )as one of the purchasers of

complainant0s properties in utter disregard of their agreement and no

evidence )as submitted by the respondent concerning the value of the said

sale of complainant0s properties.

As such, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his obligation

and duty as complainant0s legal adviser and counsel )hen he too8 advantage

of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant in ultimatelyputting complainant0s properties in his name and possession in violation

of Canon 1$ o% &' Co o% *ro%++ona- R+on+/-&y.

9'DDF=D, in vie) of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully

recommends that respondent Atty. Jose C. Go be suspended from the

practice of la) for a period of si7 (/* months from receipt hereof and the

:+6 Chapter )here he is a registered member be furnished a copy of the

same for implementation hereof, sub


4/5

Canon 1" of the same Code states

A -ayr o+ %-&y &o &' au+ o% '+ -n& an ' +'a-- / n%u-

o% &' &ru+& an on%n ro+ n '.

he records sho) that complainant reposed such high degree of trust and

confidence in herein respondent, that )hen she engaged his services, she

entrusted to him her land titles and allo)ed him to sell her lots, believing

that the proceeds thereof )ould be used to pay her creditors. espondent,

ho)ever, abused her trust and confidence )hen he did not sell her properties

to others but to himself and spent his o)n money to pay her obligations. As

correctly observed by :nvestigating :+6 Commissioner ydia $avarro,

respondent is duty-bound to render a detailed report to the complainant on

ho) much he sold the latter0s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors.=bviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers, complainant could have

earned more. ecords sho) that she did not receive any amount from

respondent. Clearly, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his

duty as complainant0s counsel.

ndoubtedly, respondent0s conduct has made him unfit to remain in the

legal profession. 'e has definitely fallen belo) the moral bar )hen he

engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unla)ful and grossly immoral acts. 9e have

been e7acting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of

members of the +ar. hey are e7pected at all times to uphold the integrityand dignity of the legal profession#and refrain from any act or omission

)hich might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the

fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession./@embership in the

legal profession is a privilege."And )henever it is made to appear that an

attorney is no longer )orthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the

public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, )hich

made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering

)ithin its +ar, to )ithdra) the privilege.3espondent, by his conduct,

blemished not only his integrity as a member of the +ar, but also the legalprofession.

6ublic interest re;uires that an attorney should e7ert his best efforts and

ability to protect the interests of his clients. A la)yer )ho performs that duty

)ith diligence and candor not only protects his client0s cause he also serves

the ends of


5/5

violation of the la)yer0s oath ("* )illful disobedience of any la)ful order

of a superior court and (3* )illfully appearing as an attorney for a party

)ithout authority to do so.1

:nRayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,11)e ordered the disbarment of la)yer )hen he

deceived his 3#-year old aunt into entrusting him )ith all her money and

later refused to return the same despite demand. :nNavarro vs. Meneses

III,12)e disbarred a member of the +ar for his refusal or failure to account

for the 6#,. he received from a client to settle a case. :nDocena vs.

Limson,1)e e7pelled from the brotherhood of la)yers, an attorney )ho

e7torted money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation.

:nBsi!os vs. Rica"ort,14an attorney )as stripped of his license to practice

la) for misappropriating his client0s money.

Considering the depravity of respondent0s offense, )e find the penalty

recommended by the :+6 too light. :t bears reiterating that a la)yer )ho

ta8es advantage of his client0s financial plight to ac;uire the latter0s

properties for his o)n benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public

in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. hus, for

violation of Canon 1/ and Canon 1" of the Code of 6rofessional

esponsibility, )hich constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent )ith the

need to maintain the high standards of the +ar and thus preserve the faith of

the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty,

that of e7pulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of la)yers.

HERE"RE, respondent J=&D &. G= is found guilty of gross

misconduct and is >:&+AD> from the practice of la). 'is name is

ordered &:CD$ from the oll of Attorneys DFFDC:BD

:@@D>:ADH.

et copies of this >ecision be furnished the +ar Confidant, the :ntegrated

+ar of the 6hilippines and all courts throughout the country.

&= =>DD>.
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_2884_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_313_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_313_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/ac_2387_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/ac_2387_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/dec1997/ac_4349_1997.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_2884_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_313_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jan1998/ac_313_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/ac_2387_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/sep1998/ac_2387_1998.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/dec1997/ac_4349_1997.htmlhttp://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/ac_1526_2005.html#fnt14

nazaria hernandez vs atty jose go

Documents