Legal Profession

EN BANC A.C. No. 8010 June 16, 2009 KELD STEMMERIK, represented by A !". #$%&'N'( A. L')ANA* and )'N" (N P.L. $"*+$%%A, ,o-plainant - versus ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, respondent. Pro-ulgated. RESOLUTION Per Curiam: Co-plainant /eld "te--eri0 is a ,iti1en and resident of 2en-ar0. 'n one of 3is trips to t3e P3ilippines, 3e 4as introdu,ed to respondent Atty. Leonuel N. &as. 3at 4as 3is -isfortune. 'n one 5isit to t3e P3ilippines, ,o-plainant -ar5eled at t3e beauty of t3e ,ountry and e6pressed 3is interest in a,7uiring real property in t3e P3ilippines. #e ,onsulted respondent 43o ad5ised 3i- t3at 3e ,ould legally a,7uire and o4n real property in t3e P3ilippines. %espondent e5en suggested an 86,998 s7.-. property in 8uarry, Agusuin, Ca4ag, "ubi,, 9a-bales 4it3 t3e assuran,e t3at t3e property 4as alienable. rusting respondent, ,o-plainant agreed to pur,3ase t3e property t3roug3 respondent as 3is representati5e or attorney:in:fa,t. Co-plainant also engaged t3e ser5i,es of respondent for t3e preparation of t3e ne,essary do,u-ents. ;or t3is purpose, respondent de-anded and re,ei5ed a P<00,000 fee. Confident t3at respondent 4ould fait3fully ,arry out 3is tas0, ,o-plainant returned to 2en-ar0, entrusting t3e pro,essing of t3e ne,essary paper4or0 to respondent. 3ereafter, respondent prepared a ,ontra,t to sell t3e property bet4een ,o-plainant, represented by respondent, and a ,ertain =onifa,io de &esa, t3e purported o4ner of t3e property. "ubse7uently, respondent prepared and notari1ed a deed of sale in 43i,3 de &esa sold and ,on5eyed t3e property to a ,ertain Ailyn *on1ales for P>.8 -illion. %espondent also drafted and notari1ed an agree-ent bet4een ,o-plainant and *on1ales stating t3at it 4as ,o-plainant 43o pro5ided t3e funds for t3e pur,3ase of t3e property. Co-plainant t3en ga5e respondent t3e full a-ount of t3e pur,3ase pri,e ?P>.8 -illion@ for 43i,3 respondent issued an a,0no4ledg-ent re,eipt. After t3e 5arious ,ontra,ts and agree-ents 4ere e6e,uted, ,o-plainant tried to get in tou,3 4it3 respondent to in7uire about 43en t3e property ,ould be registered in 3is na-e. #o4e5er, respondent suddenly be,a-e s,ar,e and refused to ans4er ,o-plainantAs ,alls and e:-ail -essages. )3en ,o-plainant 5isited t3e P3ilippines again in January 200B, 3e engaged t3e ser5i,es of t3e Ji-ene1 *on1ales Li4anag =ello Calde1 Caluya D ;ernande1 La4 (ffi,e to as,ertain t3e status of t3e property 3e supposedly boug3t. #e 4as de5astated to learn t3at aliens ,ould not o4n land under P3ilippine la4s. &oreo5er, 5erifi,ation at t3e Co--unity $n5iron-ent D Natural %esour,es (ffi,e ?C$N%(@ of t3e 2epart-ent of $n5iron-ent and Natural %esour,es in (longapo City re5ealed t3at t3e property 4as inalienable as it 4as situated 4it3in t3e for-er +" &ilitary %eser5ation. 3e C$N%( also stated t3at t3e property 4as not subEe,t to disposition or a,7uisition under %epubli, A,t No. 1<1. 3ereafter, ,o-plainant, t3roug3 3is attorneys:in: fa,t, e6erted diligent efforts to lo,ate respondent for purposes of 3olding 3i- a,,ountable for 3is fraudulent a,ts. 'n7uiry 4it3 t3e (longapo C3apter of t3e 'ntegrated =ar of t3e P3ilippines ?'=P@ dis,losed t3at respondent 4as in arrears in 3is annual dues and t3at 3e 3ad already abandoned 3is la4 offi,e in (longapo City. "ear,3 of ,ourt re,ords of ,ases 3andled by respondent only yielded 3is abandoned offi,e address in (longapo City. Co-plainant filed a ,o-plaint for disbar-ent against respondent in t3e Co--ission on =ar 2is,ipline ?C=2@ of t3e '=P. #e deplored respondentAs a,ts of serious -is,ondu,t. 'n parti,ular, 3e soug3t t3e e6pulsion of respondent fro- t3e legal profession for gra5ely -isrepresenting t3at a foreigner ,ould legally a,7uire land in t3e P3ilippines and for -ali,iously abs,onding 4it3 ,o-plainantAs P>.8 -illion. %espondent failed to file 3is ans4er and position paper despite ser5i,e of noti,e at 3is last 0no4n address. Neit3er did 3e appear in t3e s,3eduled -andatory ,onferen,e. 'n t3is ,onne,tion, t3e C=2 found t3at respondent abandoned 3is la4 pra,ti,e in (longapo City after 3is transa,tion 4it3 ,o-plainant and t3at 3e did not see it fit to ,ontest t3e ,3arges against 3i-. 3e C=2 ruled t3at respondent used 3is position as a la4yer to -islead ,o-plainant on t3e -atter of land o4ners3ip by a foreigner. #e e5en 4ent t3roug3 t3e -otion of preparing falsified and fi,titious ,ontra,ts, deeds and agree-ents. And for all t3ese s3a-eless a,ts, 3e ,olle,ted P<00,000 fro- ,o-plainant. )orse, 3e po,0eted t3e P>.8 -illion and abs,onded 4it3 it. 3e C=2 found respondent to be Fnot3ing -ore t3an an e-be11lerG 43o -isused 3is professional status as an attorney as a tool for de,ei5ing ,o-plainant and abs,onding 4it3 ,o-plainantAs -oney. %espondent 4as dis3onest and de,eitful. #e abused t3e trust and ,onfiden,e reposed by ,o-plainant in 3i-. 3e C=2 re,o--ended t3e disbar-ent of respondent. 3e =oard of *o5ernors of t3e '=P adopted t3e findings and re,o--endation of t3e C=2 4it3 t3e -odifi,ation t3at respondent 4as furt3er re7uired to return t3e a-ount of P<.2 -illion to respondent. )e agree 4it3 t3e '=P. SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF THE DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS )e s3all first address a t3res3old issue. 4as respondent properly gi5en noti,e of t3e disbar-ent pro,eedings against 3i-H !es. 3e respondent did not file any ans4er or position paper, nor did 3e appear during t3e s,3eduled -andatory ,onferen,e. %espondent in fa,t abandoned 3is last 0no4n address, 3is la4 offi,e in (longapo City, after 3e ,o--itted t3e e-be11le-ent. %espondent s3ould not be allo4ed to benefit fro3is disappearing a,t. #e ,an neit3er defeat t3is CourtAs Eurisdi,tion o5er 3i- as a -e-ber of t3e bar nor e5ade ad-inistrati5e liability by t3e -ere ruse of ,on,ealing 3is 43ereabouts. 3us, ser5i,e of t3e ,o-plaint and ot3er orders and pro,esses on respondentAs offi,e 4as suffi,ient noti,e to 3i-.

1|Page

Legal Profession
'ndeed, sin,e 3e 3i-self rendered t3e ser5i,e of noti,e on 3i- i-possible, t3e noti,e re7uire-ent ,annot apply to 3i- and 3e is t3us ,onsidered to 3a5e 4ai5ed it. 3e la4 does not re7uire t3at t3e i-possible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. 3e la4 obliges no one to perfor- an i-possibility. La4s and rules -ust be interpreted in a 4ay t3at t3ey are in a,,ordan,e 4it3 logi,, ,o--on sense, reason and pra,ti,ality. 'n t3is ,onne,tion, la4yers -ust update t3eir re,ords 4it3 t3e '=P by infor-ing t3e '=P National (ffi,e or t3eir respe,ti5e ,3apters of any ,3ange in offi,e or residential address and ot3er ,onta,t details. 'n ,ase su,3 ,3ange is not duly updated, ser5i,e of noti,e on t3e offi,e or residential address appearing in t3e re,ords of t3e '=P National (ffi,e s3all ,onstitute suffi,ient noti,e to a la4yer for purposes of ad-inistrati5e pro,eedings against 3i-. RESPONDENTS ADMINISTRATIVE INFRACTIONS AND HIS LIABILITY THEREFOR La4yers, as -e-bers of a noble profession, 3a5e t3e duty to pro-ote respe,t for t3e la4 and up3old t3e integrity of t3e bar. As -en and 4o-en entrusted 4it3 t3e la4, t3ey -ust ensure t3at t3e la4 fun,tions to prote,t liberty and not as an instru-ent of oppression or de,eption. %espondent 3as been 4eig3ed by t3e e6a,ting standards of t3e legal profession and 3as been found 4anting. %espondent ,o--itted a serious brea,3 of 3is oat3 as a la4yer. #e is also guilty of ,ulpable 5iolation of t3e Code of Professional %esponsibility, t3e ,ode of et3i,s of t3e legal profession. All la4yers ta0e an oat3 to support t3e Constitution, to obey t3e la4s and to do no false3ood. 3at oat3 is neit3er -ere for-al ,ere-ony nor 3ollo4 4ords. 't is a sa,red trust t3at s3ould be up3eld and 0ept in5iolable at all ti-es. La4yers are ser5ants of t3e la4 and t3e la4 is t3eir -aster. 3ey s3ould not si-ply obey t3e la4s, t3ey s3ould also inspire respe,t for and obedien,e t3ereto by ser5ing as e6e-plars 4ort3y of e-ulation. 'ndeed, t3at is t3e first pre,ept of t3e Code of Professional %esponsibility. CAN(N 1 I A LA)!$% "#ALL +P#(L2 #$ C(N" ' + '(N, (=$! #$ LA)" (; #$ LAN2 AN2 P%(&( $ %$"P$C ;(% LA) AN2 L$*AL P%(C$""$". "e,tion pro5ides. J, Arti,le K'' of t3e Constitution %espondent, in gi5ing ad5i,e t3at dire,tly ,ontradi,ted a funda-ental ,onstitutional poli,y, s3o4ed disrespe,t for t3e Constitution and gross ignoran,e of basi, la4. )orse, 3e prepared spurious do,u-ents t3at 3e 0ne4 4ere 5oid and illegal. =y -a0ing it appear t3at de &esa undertoo0 to sell t3e property to ,o-plainant and t3at de &esa t3ereafter sold t3e property to *on1ales 43o -ade t3e pur,3ase for and in be3alf of ,o-plainant, 3e falsified publi, do,u-ents and 0no4ingly 5iolated t3e Anti:2u--y La4. %espondentAs -is,ondu,t did not end t3ere. =y ad5ising ,o-plainant t3at a foreigner ,ould legally and 5alidly a,7uire real estate in t3e P3ilippines and by assuring ,o-plainant t3at t3e property 4as alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a false3ood on 3is ,lient. #e did not gi5e due regard to t3e trust and ,onfiden,e reposed in 3i- by ,o-plainant. 'nstead, 3e de,ei5ed ,o-plainant and -isled 3i- into parting 4it3 P<00,000 for ser5i,es t3at 4ere bot3 illegal and unprofessional. &oreo5er, by po,0eting and -isappropriating t3e P>.8 -illion gi5en by ,o-plainant for t3e pur,3ase of t3e property, respondent ,o--itted a fraudulent a,t t3at 4as ,ri-inal in nature. %espondent spun an intri,ate 4eb of lies. 'n t3e pro,ess, 3e ,o--itted unet3i,al a,t after unet3i,al a,t, 4antonly 5iolating la4s and professional standards. ;or all t3is, respondent 5iolated not only t3e la4yerAs oat3 and Canon 1 of t3e Code of Professional %esponsibility. #e also transgressed t3e follo4ing pro5isions of t3e Code of Professional %esponsibility. %ule 1.01. I A !"#er s$! u% !"*u , +)s$&%es', +e-e)'*u -&%+u-'. %&' e%(!(e )% ),,&r! &r

%ule 1.02. I A !"#er s$! %&' -&u%se &r !.e' !-')v)')es !),e+ !' +e*)!%-e &* '$e !" &r !' esse%)%( -&%*)+e%-e )% '$e e(! s#s'e, . CAN(N J I A LA/YER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AN2 "+PP(% #$ AC 'C' '$" (; #$ 'N $*%A $2 =A%. CAN(N 1B I A LA/YER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AN2 L(!AL ! IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS /ITH HIS CLIENT. CAN(N 16 I A LA/YER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT #A &A! C(&$ 'N ( #'" P(""$""'(N. CAN(N 1J I A LA/YER ()$" ;'2$L' ! ( #$ CA+"$ (; #'" CL'$N AN2 #$ SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. ?e-p3asis supplied@ A la4yer 43o resorts to nefarious s,3e-es to ,ir,u-5ent t3e la4 and uses 3is legal 0no4ledge to furt3er 3is selfis3 ends to t3e great preEudi,e of ot3ers, poses a ,lear and present danger to t3e rule of la4 and to t3e legal syste-. #e does not only tarnis3 t3e i-age of t3e bar and degrade t3e integrity and dignity of t3e legal

"$C. J. "a5e in ,ases of 3ereditary su,,ession, no pri5ate lands s3all be transferred or ,on5eyed e6,ept to indi5iduals, ,orporations, or asso,iations 7ualified to a,7uire or 3old lands of t3e publi, do-ain. 3is Court 3as interpreted t3is pro5ision, as early as t3e 19<J ,ase Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, to -ean t3at Funder t3e Constitution, aliens -ay not a,7uire pri5ate or agri,ultural lands, in,luding residential lands.G 3e pro5ision is a de,laration of i-perati5e ,onstitutional poli,y.

2|Page

Legal Profession
profession, 3e also betrays e5eryt3ing t3at t3e legal profession stands for. 't is respondent and 3is 0ind t3at gi5e la4yering a bad na-e and -a0e lay-en support 2i,0 t3e =ut,3erAs ,all, F/ill all la4yersLG A disgra,e to t3eir professional bret3ren, t3ey -ust be purged fro- t3e bar. /HEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. &as is 3ereby DISBARRED. 3e Cler0 of Court is dire,ted to i--ediately stri0e out t3e na-e of respondent fro- t3e %oll of Attorneys. %espondent is 3ereby ORDERED to return to ,o-plainant /eld "te--eri0 t3e total a-ount of P<.2 -illion 4it3 interest at 12M per annu- fro- t3e date of pro-ulgation of t3is resolution until full pay-ent. %espondent is furt3er DIRECTED to sub-it to t3e Court proof of pay-ent of t3e a-ount 4it3in ten days fropay-ent. 3e National =ureau of 'n5estigation ?N='@ is ORDERED to lo,ate Atty. &as and file t3e appropriate ,ri-inal ,3arges against 3i-. 3e N=' is furt3er DIRECTED to regularly report t3e progress of its a,tion in t3is ,ase to t3is Court t3roug3 t3e =ar Confidant. Let ,opies of t3is resolution be furnis3ed t3e =ar Confidant 43o s3all fort34it3 re,ord it in t3e personal file of respondent, t3e Court Ad-inistrator 43o s3all inforall ,ourts of t3e P3ilippines, t3e 'ntegrated =ar of t3e P3ilippines 43i,3 s3all disse-inate ,opies to all its ,3apters and -e-bers and all ad-inistrati5e and 7uasi: Eudi,ial agen,ies of t3e %epubli, of t3e P3ilippines. SO ORDERED.
funds, t3is s3o4ed t3at t3e sale to *on1ales 4as a lin0 in t3e ,3ain of a,ts ,o--itted by respondent to defraud ,o-plainant. 'd., pp. 22:2>. 'd., p. 21. Certifi,ation dated ;ebruary J, 200B. 'd., p. 2<. 'd. Attys. #er-inio A. Li4anag and )inston P.L. $sguerra. At t3e >rd ;loor of t3e &ely %ose =uilding at ><:2>rd "treet, )==, (longapo City. Rollo, pp. 1:8. 'd. %eport and %e,o--endation dated &ar,3 >1, 2008 penned by 'n5estigating Co--issioner %i,o A. Li-ping,o. 'd., pp. <B:<J. 'd. 'd. 'd. 'd. %esolution No. KC''':2008:<2> dated &ay 22, 2008. 'd., pp. <>:<<. Santos, Jr. v. PNOC E ploration Corporation, *.%. No. 1J09<>, 2> "epte-ber 2008. 'd. 'n ,ase t3e update is done in oneAs ,3apter, t3e said ,3apter s3all pro-ptly notify t3e '=P National (ffi,e about t3e -atter. 'n t3is ,onne,tion, t3e rele5ant portion of "e,tion 19, Arti,le '' of t3e =y:La4s of t3e '=P pro5ides. $5ery ,3ange after registration in respe,t to any of t3e -atters abo5e spe,ified Nin,luding offi,e and residen,e addressesO s3all be reported 4it3in si6ty ?60@ days to t3e C3apter "e,retary, 43o s3all in turn pro-ptly report t3e ,3ange to t3e National (ffi,e. 3e La4yerAs (at3 43i,3 is ta0en by all -e-bers of t3e bar as a prere7uisite for t3eir ad-ission to t3e legal profession states. I, 3333333333, +& s& e,% # s"e!r '$!' ' 4ill -aintain allegian,e to t3e %epubli, of t3e P3ilippinesP I ") su44&r' )'s C&%s')'u')&% !%+ &.e# '$e !"s as 4ell as t3e legal orders of t3e duly ,onstituted aut3orities t3ereinP ' 4ill do no false3ood, nor ,onsent to t3e doing of any in ,ourtP ' 4ill not 4ittingly or 4illingly pro-ote or sue any groundless, false or unla4ful suit, or gi5e aid nor ,onsent to t3e sa-eP ' 4ill delay no -an for -oney or -ali,e, and 4ill ,ondu,t -yself as a la4yer a,,ording to t3e best of -y 0no4ledge and dis,retion, 4it3 all good fait3 and fidelity as 4ell to t3e ,ourts as to -y ,lientsP and ' i-pose upon -yself t3is 5oluntary obligations 4it3out any -ental reser5ation or purpose of e5asion. "o 3elp -e *od. !ing"Dumali v. !orres, A.C. No. B161, 1< April 200<, <2J "C%A 108. Catu v. Rellosa , A.C. No. BJ>8, 19 ;ebruary 2008, B<6 "C%A 209. J9 P3il. <61 ?19<J@. #odine$ v. Pak %uen, 20B P3il. 1J6 ?198>@. Co--on4ealt3 A,t No. 108, as a-ended by Presidential 2e,ree No. J1B. "3a0espeare, )., &enr' t(e )*, Part **, A,t 'C, ",ene 2, Line J2.

REYNATO S. PUNO C3ief Justi,e LEONARDO A. 0UISUMBING Asso,iate Justi,e CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Asso,iate Justi,e ANTONIO T. CARPIO Asso,iate Justi,e RENATO C. CORONA Asso,iate Justi,e CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Asso,iate Justi,e MINITA V. CHICO-NA1ARIO Asso,iate Justi,e PRESBITERO 2. VELASCO, 2R. Asso,iate Justi,e ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Asso,iate Justi,e TERESITA 2. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Asso,iate Justi,e ARTURO D. BRION Asso,iate Justi,e DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Asso,iate Justi,e LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Asso,iate Justi,e
Rollo, pp. 16:1J. 'd., pp. 18:20. 3e ,ir,u-stan,e of t3e fi,titious sale to *on1ales 4as ne5er ade7uately dis,ussed by t3e ,o-plainant. #o4e5er, ,oupled 4it3 t3e fa,t t3at respondent prepared and notari1ed anot3er agree-ent ?t3is ti-e bet4een *on1ales and ,o-plainant@ 43ereby *on1ales re,ogni1ed ,o-plainant as t3e sour,e of

3|Page