Case Digest (A.C. No. 8010)
Facts:
Keld Stemmerik, a Danish national, engaged Atty. Leonuel N. Mas to acquire an 86,998 sq.m. parcel in Subic, Zambales, paid P400,000 for services and P3.8 million as purchase money, and later discovered the land was inalienable and that aliens may not own private land; the respondent prepared and notarized contracts and deeds and then absconded. Complainant filed a disbarment complaint with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the CBD recommended disbarment, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with a directive to return P4.2 million.Issues:
- Was service of the disbarment complaint on respondent sufficient despite his absence?
- Did respondent’s acts warrant disbarment and monetary restitution?
Ruling:
The Court held that service at respondent’s last known office was sufficient because he abandoned his address and cannot evade notice by concealing his whereabouts. The Court disbarred Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, ordered his Case Digest (A.C. No. 8010)
Facts:
- Parties and representation
- Keld Stemmerik was a citizen and resident of Denmark and the Complainant.
- Atty. Leonuel N. Mas was the Respondent and a member of the bar who maintained a law office in Olongapo City.
- Complainant was represented in the administrative proceedings by Attys. Herminio A. Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra.
- Initial transaction and retainership
- During a visit to the Philippines, Complainant expressed interest in acquiring real property and consulted Respondent.
- Respondent advised Complainant that a foreigner could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines and suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic, Zambales, assuring the property was alienable.
- Complainant agreed to purchase the property through Respondent as his representative and attorney-in-fact.
- Respondent prepared the necessary documents and demanded and received a P400,000 fee from Complainant.
- Complainant returned to Denmark, entrusting Respondent with processing the paperwork.
- Documents prepared and funds transferred
- Respondent prepared a contract to sell between Complainant, represented by Respondent, and a purported owner, Bonifacio de Mesa. [Rollo, pp. 16-17]
- Respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa allegedly sold the property to Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million. [Rollo, pp. 18-20]
- Respondent drafted and notarized an agreement between Complainant and Gonzales acknowledging Complainant as the source of funds. [Rollo, pp. 22-23]
- Complainant gave Respondent the full purchase price of P3.8 million; Respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt. [Rollo, p. 21]
- Discovery of invalidity and inalienability
- After execution of documents, Respondent became scarce and refused to answer Complainant’s calls and e-mail messages.
- On a January 2005 visit, Complainant engaged the Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez Law Office to ascertain the property’s status.
- Complainant learned that aliens could not own land under Philippine law and that the property was inalienable because it lay within the former US Military Reservation.
- The Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Olongapo City, certified the property was inalienable and not subject to disposition or acquisition under Republic Act No. 141. [Certification dated February 7, 2005; Rollo, p. 24]
- Efforts to locate Respondent and administrative filing
- Complainant, through his attorneys-in-fact, made diligent efforts to locate Respondent for accountability. [Attys. Herminio A. Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra; footnote 7]
- Inquiry with the Olongapo Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) disclosed Respondent was in arrears in annual dues and had abandoned his law office at the 3rd Floor, Mely Rose Building, Olongapo City. [footnote 8]
- Court record searches only yielded Respondent’s abandoned office address.
- Proceedings before the IBP and findings below ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Sufficiency of notice for administrative proceedings
- Whether service of the complaint and other orders and processes at Respondent’s last known address constituted sufficient notice of the disbarment proceedings.
- Liability and appropriate sanction
- Whether Respondent committed acts warranting disbarment for ethical and legal violations in advising and transacting with Complainant.
- Whether Respondent must be ord...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)