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.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 11304)

Transaction and Misrepresentation

In 2013, Sarmiento and Halili met respondent Fernando, who proposed the sale of a 374-square meter parcel of land in Parañaque City, purportedly owned by him through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated April 14, 2012. The respondent falsely claimed that he was the absolute owner of the subject land, despite it being titled in the names of his parents. He represented that his parents conveyed the land to him to avoid tax payments associated with the property transfer.

Subsequent Legal Issues

The complainants agreed to purchase the land for P3,740,000.00, leading to the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale. However, the legitimacy of the transaction was called into question when respondent's mother, Natividad Fernando, along with his siblings, filed a complaint against the complainants and the respondent, seeking to nullify the SPA and the sale. It was revealed that the SPA was falsified, as the respondent's father had died in 1997, years before the SPA was allegedly signed, and evidence suggested forgery of his mother’s signature.

Financial and Administrative Impact

Faced with the lawsuit, complainants Sarmiento and Halili settled with Natividad Fernando and her heirs for P2,992,000.00 to formalize their ownership, which they were later compelled to share. Following this financial burden and the failure of respondent to reimburse them, complainants filed criminal charges for estafa and a petition for disbarment against Fernando.

Disciplinary Proceedings

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued an order requiring the respondent to answer the complaint, which he dismissed as harassment and failed to substantively address. When the hearing occurred, the respondent was absent, leading the IBP to consider the case as submitted for decision. Subsequent to his answer, the IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence to recommend disbarment, concluding that the respondent had committed several acts of deceit, including pocketing the sale proceeds and using the falsified SPA to mislead the complainants.

Ruling on Disbarment

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP, concluding that the respondent's actions constituted gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically those prohibiting unlawful and dishonest conduct. The Court emphasize

...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.