Case Digest (A.C. No. 5704)
Facts:
Willem Kupers v. Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas, A.C. No. 5704, May 08, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The case arose from a letter-complaint dated April 15, 2002 by Willem Kupers to the Court Administrator against Atty. Johnson B. Hontanosas. The Court Administrator referred the letter to the Bar Confidant on April 25, 2002; the Acting Bar Confidant informed Kupers on May 7, 2002 that a verified complaint in nineteen copies was required and Kupers submitted the additional copies on May 25, 2002.Kupers alleged that respondent had prepared and notarized contracts that were invalid and illegal because they violated limits on alien leases of private lands, acted with conflicting interests by representing adverse parties, refused to furnish or keep copies of notarized contracts, and breached duties to a client, Karl Novak, by refusing dismissal, failing to turn over documents, handling matters without preparation, betraying trust, and refusing to see Novak with a translator. Kupers identified specific instruments: a memorandum of agreement and a lease between the Bussés and Hochstrasser (a Swiss national) for 50 years renewable for another 50 years; a similar lease between the Bussés and Emberger for 49 years renewable for another 49 years; and two deeds of sale transferring leased properties to Naomie Melchior (a Filipina) and Karl Novak (a German national). All four challenged documents were notarized by respondent.
Respondent was directed to comment and replied that Kupers’ allegations were baseless and included falsified documents; he also moved to cite Kupers for contempt. On February 10, 2003 the Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Commissioner Doroteo Aguila required memoranda in lieu of hearings; he found that the lease contracts contravened P.D. No. 471 (limits on alien leases) but that other charges lacked proof, and recommended a two-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors, however, disregarded the commissioner’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint on February 27, 2004 out of compassion, finding no per se illegality warranting suspension.
On review, the Supreme Court examined the record, agreed that most charges were unsupported by evidence, but held that administrative complaints against lawyers are sui generis and need not be filed by an aggrieved party; it found the challenged lease agreements plainly violative of the law limiting alien leases. The Court considered respondent’s argument invoking R.A. No. 7652 (allowing long-term leases for foreign investors) but concluded...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the complainant, not being a party to the contracts, had capacity to file an administrative complaint against the lawyer.
- Whether respondent committed professional misconduct or gross misconduct by drafting and notarizing long-term lease agreements that violated statutory limits on alien leases.
- What disciplinary sanction is appropriate for r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)