Title
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.
disbarment
property sale
nullification of sale

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-22-053)

Factual Background: The Property Sale and Respondent’s Representations

In 2013, respondent proposed that complainants purchase the subject land, then titled in the names of the spouses Gregorio and Natividad Fernando under TCT No. 68952. To induce the purchase, respondent represented that he was the absolute owner of the subject land. He claimed that his parents had already conveyed the land to him through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 14 April 2012, and he asserted that only an SPA was executed to avoid tax payments for transfers, first from his parents to him and then from him to the buyers. He further represented that both parents were alive at the time of the transaction, that their signatures in the SPA were genuine, and that he was the sole heir, so no adverse ownership claim could arise.

Persuaded, complainants agreed to purchase the subject land for P3,740,000.00. To evidence the agreement, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between respondent—purporting to act as attorney-in-fact of his parents—and Sylvia Sarmiento, the wife of complainant Leonardo Sarmiento. After the transaction, TCT No. 68952 in the parents’ names was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 010-2013000507 in Sylvia’s name.

The Civil Case Revealing the Forgery Allegations

After the sale, a complaint seeking to nullify the SPA, the deed of sale, and the resulting title TCT No. 010-2013000507 was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paranaque City. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 14-040 and was filed by respondent’s mother Natividad Fernando and the heirs of respondent’s father Gregorio Fernando.

In the course of Civil Case No. 14-040, complainants learned of the falsity of respondent’s representations. They were informed that respondent was not the absolute owner of the subject land and that it had never been conveyed to him. They also learned that the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was falsified. Specifically, complainants asserted that Gregorio Fernando could not have signed the SPA because he had died on 4 April 1997, as shown by a Certificate of Death issued by the County of Contra Costa in California. They also claimed that the forgery of Natividad Fernando’s signature was apparent by comparison between the signature on the SPA and her legitimate signature appearing on her OSCA card. Complainants further asserted that respondent was not the only heir because he had at least four siblings—Samuel, Clifford, Mildred, and Rene Fernando—and that Samuel, Clifford, and Mildred, together with Natividad Fernando, designated Rene as their attorney-in-fact in prosecuting Civil Case No. 14-040.

To preserve the title and to end the litigation, Sylvia and Leonardo Sarmiento entered into a settlement with Natividad Fernando and Gregorio’s heirs for P2,992,000.00, with the complainants equally sharing the settlement amount. The settlement was approved by the RTC in an Order dated 4 November 2014. Complainants thereafter demanded reimbursement of the P2,992,000.00 from respondent, but respondent ignored the demand.

Initiation of Criminal and Administrative Proceedings

As a result of respondent’s alleged acts, complainants filed two cases: an estafa complaint with the OCP of Muntinlupa City docketed as NPS Docket No. XV-08-INV-15A00026, and the present disbarment petition docketed as CBD Case No. 15-4471 before the IBP. In support of the disbarment petition, complainants submitted copies of TCT Nos. 68952 and 010-2013000507, the SPA dated 14 April 2012, the deed of absolute sale, the foreign Certificate of Death, the OSCA card, and other SPAs executed by Samuel, Clifford, and Mildred in favor of Rene, as well as the RTC Order dated 4 November 2014 approving the settlement.

IBP-CBD Proceedings and Respondent’s Non-appearance

On 9 January 2015, the IBP-CBD issued an Order requiring respondent to file an answer within fifteen days from receipt. Respondent responded by a letter, contending that the disbarment petition merely reiterated the estafa complaint before the OCP and that the petition had been filed for harassment. He also urged dismissal and sought damages in an amount of not less than P100,000,000.00.

On 24 March 2015, the IBP-CBD set the hearing on 25 May 2015, requiring both parties to appear. Complainants attended the hearing, but respondent did not. In an Order dated 25 May 2015, the IBP-CBD treated the case as deemed submitted for decision. Nevertheless, on 27 May 2015, respondent filed an Answer praying for dismissal.

Respondent’s Defenses Before the IBP

Respondent challenged the petition on multiple grounds. First, he argued that complainants lacked legal personality because they did not come to the IBP-CBD with clean hands. Second, he claimed complainants committed perjury in their verification/certification when they stated that they had not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any other forum, despite the pendency of the estafa complaint before the OCP. Third, he asserted that the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was not a falsification and was merely a reiteration of earlier SPAs. He further claimed the SPA dated 22 November 1978 was in the possession of his brother, Rene Fernando.

Report and Recommendation of the IBP-CBD

In a Report and Recommendation dated 2 June 2015, the IBP-CBD recommended disbarment. It found that the evidence established, among others, that (a) the SPA allegedly executed by respondent’s parents in April 2012 was a forgery, considering that respondent’s father had already died in 1997 and that respondent’s mother’s signature was not hers; (b) the deed of sale was executed by respondent purportedly as attorney-in-fact of his parents, who were the registered co-owners, but respondent was not an attorney-in-fact of his parents; (c) respondent received and kept the P3,740,000.00 paid by the buyers; and (d) when sued, the buyers paid an additional P2,992,000.00 to respondent’s mother and siblings so the sale would be honored, yet respondent refused to return this amount despite demands.

The IBP-CBD concluded that respondent failed to squarely address the issues and failed to discredit the evidence. It further characterized respondent’s conduct as involving chicanery, including an attempt to cheat the inheritance of his mother and siblings, and it found his dishonesty to be beyond question.

Adoption by the IBP Board of Governors and Submission to the Court

On 20 June 2015, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the IBP-CBD’s recommendation through Resolution No. XXI-2015-531. The Court then resolved the petition for disbarment.

Issues Framed by the Court’s Review

The Court’s review required it to determine whether respondent’s conduct warranted administrative sanctions as a member of the legal profession. It also had to address respondent’s defenses, including his challenges to complainants’ standing and alleged perjury, and his claim that prior SPAs negated falsification of the SPA used in the sale.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility

The Court adopted the recommendation of the IBP-CBD and the IBP-BOG. It held that the evidence on record was “damning” and that the complainants’ proof led to reasonable conclusions that the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was falsified and that respondent used the falsified SPA, together with deceitful representations, to sell and profit from property he knew was not his or his to sell. The Court further reasoned that because the established facts showed that respondent was the only one who benefited from his use of the falsified SPA, respondent could be presumed to have been the material author of the falsification.

The Court found respondent unable to repudiate the evidence against him. It ruled that the existence of an SPA dated 22 December 2002, or any prior SPA, did not prove that the SPA dated 14 April 2012—the very document respondent used to convince complainants—was genuine. Even if earlier SPAs existed, the Court emphasized that the SPA dated 14 April 2012 was executed after the death of Gregorio Fernando in 1997 and bore the forged signature of Natividad Fernando.

On respondent’s attacks regarding complainants’ personality and alleged perjury, the Court declined to give them serious consideration. It held that complainants did not commit perjury when they stated that they did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any other forum. The Court reasoned that although the criminal and administrative cases may have been based on similar factual circumstances, they involved distinct issues. The preliminary investigation in the estafa case sought to determine probable cause for criminal indictment, while the administrative case sought to determine whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned as a lawyer. Thus, the filing of an estafa complaint could not preclude disciplinary proceedings.

Application of Precedents and Principle on Disbarment

The Court determined that respondent’s actions constituted gross violations of Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 requiring that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 7.03 prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law or behaves in a scandalous manner to discredit the legal profession.

The Court relied on jurisprudence to support the penalty. It cited Brennisen vs. Contawi, where the Court disbarred a lawyer who used a falsified SPA to mortgage, sell, and profit from the property of another, and Sabayle vs. Tandayag, Flores vs. Chua, and other cases showing that deliberate falsifications, notarization of spuri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms