Title
Supreme Court
Sarmiento vs. Ferdo, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 11304
Decision Date
Jun 28, 2022
A lawyer used a falsified SPA to sell land he didn’t own, defrauding buyers and his family, leading to his disbarment for dishonesty and deceit.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 11304)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties Involved and Background
    • Complainants: Leonardo L. Sarmiento and Richard G. Halili, business associates engaged in buying, developing, and selling real estate.
    • Respondent: Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr., a lawyer also known as Jerry Fernando, implicated in a disputed property sale.
    • Initial Contact: In 2013, the complainants met the respondent during a meet-up arranged by one of their broker friends.
  • Representations Made by the Respondent
    • During the meet-up, the respondent proposed the sale of a 374‑square meter parcel of land in ParaAaque City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 68952.
    • The respondent falsely represented that:
      • He was the absolute owner of the subject land, despite TCT No. 68952 still being in the name of his parents.
      • His parents had already conveyed the subject land to him through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 14 April 2012, executed supposedly to avoid double taxation.
      • The signatures on the SPA—claimed to be genuine—were executed by his living parents, and that he was the sole heir, precluding claims by any other person.
  • Transaction and Conveyance Details
    • Influenced by the representations, the complainants agreed to purchase the subject land for ₱3,740,000.00.
    • A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between the respondent (acting as the alleged attorney‑in‑fact for his parents) and Sylvia Sarmiento, the wife of complainant Leonardo Sarmiento.
    • Subsequent to the sale, TCT No. 68952 (in the name of the respondent’s parents) was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 010‑2013000507 in the name of Sylvia.
  • Emergence of Litigation and Discovery of Fraud
    • A complaint was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ParaAaque City (Civil Case No. 14‑040) by the respondent’s mother and the heirs of his father, challenging the validity of the SPA, the deed of sale, and the new title.
    • The ensuing investigation revealed that:
      • The SPA dated 14 April 2012 was falsified, evidenced by the fact that the respondent’s father had already died in 1997 (supported by a Certificate of Death from California).
      • The signature attributed to his mother on the SPA was proven to be forged, as demonstrated by a comparison with her legitimate signature on her OSCA card.
      • The respondent was not the sole heir; he had at least four living siblings who had designated one of them as attorney‑in‑fact in the RTC case.
  • Settlement of the Civil Case and Subsequent Actions
    • To preserve the new TCT and end the litigation in Civil Case No. 14‑040, Sylvia and complainant Leonardo Sarmiento were compelled to enter into a settlement with the respondent’s mother and siblings for ₱2,992,000.00, which was shared equally by the complainants.
    • Dissatisfied with the outcome and prejudice suffered, the complainants filed two cases against the respondent:
      • An estafa complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Muntinlupa City.
      • A petition for disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) (docketed as CBD Case No. 15‑4471).
  • IBP Disciplinary Proceedings
    • The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP‑CBD) issued an order on 9 January 2015 requiring the respondent to answer the petition within fifteen days.
    • The respondent submitted a letter arguing that:
      • The disbarment petition merely reiterated the estafa complaint and was intended as harassment.
      • The complainants lacked the necessary legal standing due to their conduct and alleged perjury in their verification.
    • Despite the respondent’s attempt to delay or dismiss the administrative proceeding, he failed to appear at the hearing set for 25 May 2015, leading the IBP‑CBD to consider the case submitted for decision.
  • Findings and Evidence Presented
    • Evidence demonstrated that:
      • The SPA of 14 April 2012 was falsified; it was questionable because it was executed after the death of Gregorio Fernando and bore a forged signature of Natividad Fernando.
      • The respondent misrepresented his capacity as attorney‑in‑fact of his parents, thereby fraudulently selling the subject land.
      • He personally profited from the transaction by receiving the ₱3,740,000.00 from the buyers and subsequently failing to reimburse the settled amount of ₱2,992,000.00 to the complainants.
    • Comparative cases (Brennisen, Sabayle, and Flores) were cited to underscore the severity of deceit and dishonesty in similar fraudulent transactions.
  • Conclusion of Proceedings
    • The IBP‑CBD and later the IBP Board of Governors (IBP‑BOG) recommended the disbarment of the respondent based on his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
    • The disciplinary proceedings, backed by compelling evidence, culminated in the decision to disbar Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr.

Issues:

  • Authenticity of the Special Power of Attorney
    • Whether the SPA dated 14 April 2012, which was pivotal to the sale, was genuine or falsified.
    • The implications of executing an SPA after the death of Gregorio Fernando and the authenticity of the signatures involved.
  • Misrepresentation and Deceit in the Conveyance of Property
    • Whether the respondent’s representations regarding his authority to sell the subject land were deceitful and intended to defraud the complainants.
    • The validity of his claim of being the sole heir, given the presence of other living siblings.
  • Legal Standing of the Complainants
    • Whether the complainants possessed the proper legal standing to file a petition for disbarment despite concurrently initiating an estafa complaint.
    • The significance of the complainants’ verification in their petition and the allegations of perjury.
  • Appropriate Penalty for Professional Misconduct
    • Whether the respondent’s conduct, in light of the documented fraud and deceit, warranted the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
    • The alignment of the respondent’s actions with violations of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, namely Rules 1.01 and 7.03.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms