50%(2)50% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (2 Abstimmungen)
479 Ansichten2 Seiten
- Nazaria Hernandez engaged attorney Jose C. Ro to help pay off her husband's debts after he abandoned her family. Ro convinced Hernandez to transfer ownership of her properties to him so he could sell them and pay the creditors, but he did not do this. Instead, he registered the titles of the properties in his own name.
- A review found that Ro acquired all of Hernandez's properties through deeds of sale she executed in his favor without monetary consideration. It was evident that Ro notarized the documents involving the properties.
- The IBP recommended suspending Ro for 4 months. However, the court found Ro took advantage of Hernandez's situation for his own benefit, which destroys public confidence in the legal profession.
- Nazaria Hernandez engaged attorney Jose C. Ro to help pay off her husband's debts after he abandoned her family. Ro convinced Hernandez to transfer ownership of her properties to him so he could sell them and pay the creditors, but he did not do this. Instead, he registered the titles of the properties in his own name.
- A review found that Ro acquired all of Hernandez's properties through deeds of sale she executed in his favor without monetary consideration. It was evident that Ro notarized the documents involving the properties.
- The IBP recommended suspending Ro for 4 months. However, the court found Ro took advantage of Hernandez's situation for his own benefit, which destroys public confidence in the legal profession.
- Nazaria Hernandez engaged attorney Jose C. Ro to help pay off her husband's debts after he abandoned her family. Ro convinced Hernandez to transfer ownership of her properties to him so he could sell them and pay the creditors, but he did not do this. Instead, he registered the titles of the properties in his own name.
- A review found that Ro acquired all of Hernandez's properties through deeds of sale she executed in his favor without monetary consideration. It was evident that Ro notarized the documents involving the properties.
- The IBP recommended suspending Ro for 4 months. However, the court found Ro took advantage of Hernandez's situation for his own benefit, which destroys public confidence in the legal profession.
NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED B !UCIAN" S. HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant, vs. ATT. J"SE C. #", respondent. FACTS: Nazaria Hernandezs husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S. Hernandez, r. Shortl! therea"ter, her husbands numerous creditors demanded pa!ments o" his loans. Fear"ul that the various mort#a#e contracts involvin# her properties $ill be "oreclosed and a$are o" impendin# suits "or sums o" mone! a#ainst her, complainant en#a#ed the le#al services o" Att!. ose C. %o. &espondent instilled in complainant a "eelin# o" helplessness, "ear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to #ive him her land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pa! her creditors. He then persuaded her to e'ecute deeds o" sale in his "avor $ithout an! monetar! or valuable consideration. Complainant a#reed on condition that he $ould sell the lots and "rom the proceeds pa! her creditors. Complainant also o$ned Lots $hich $ere mort#a#ed to her creditors. (hen the mort#a#es "ell due, respondent redeemed the lots. A#ain, he convinced her to e'ecute deeds o" sale involvin# those lots in his "avor. As a result, respondent became the re#istered o$ner o" all the lots belon#in# to complainant. Sometime in )*+,, complainant came to -no$ that respondent did not sell her lots as a#reed upon. .nstead, he paid her creditors $ith his o$n "unds and had her land titles re#istered in his name, deprivin# her o" her real properties $orth millions. .n his ans$er, respondent denied the alle#ations and that he sold, in #ood "aith, complainants lots to various bu!ers, includin# himsel", "or valuable consideration. /n several occasions, he e'tended "inancial assistance to complainant and even invited her to live $ith his "amil!. His children used to call her 0Lola0 due to her "re1uent visits to his residence. He pra!ed that the complaint be dismissed "or "ailure to state a cause o" action. A care"ul e'amination and evaluation o" the evidence submitted b! the parties sho$ed that all the properties o" the complainant are presentl! o$ned b! the respondent b! virtue o" several deeds o" sale e'ecuted b! the complainant in "avor o" the respondent $ithout monetar! consideration. .t is evident "rom the records that respondent $as the one $ho notarized the documents involvin# the said properties redeemed or repurchased b! the complainant "rom her creditors $hich ended up in respondents name. The .23 recommended he be suspended "or 4 months. .SS56: (hether or not respondent abused the trust o" his client in violation o" his oath. H6L7: Considerin# the depravit! o" respondents o""ense, $e "ind the penalt! recommended b! the .23 too li#ht. .t bears reiteratin# that a la$!er $ho ta-es advanta#e o" his clients "inancial pli#ht to ac1uire the latters properties "or his o$n bene"it is destructive o" the con"idence o" the public in the "idelit!, honest!, and inte#rit! o" the le#al pro"ession. Thus, "or violation o" Canon )4 and Canon )+ o" the Code o" 3ro"essional &esponsibilit!, $hich constitutes #ross misconduct, and consistent $ith the need to maintain the hi#h standards o" the 2ar and thus preserve the "aith o" the public in the le#al pro"ession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalt!, that o" e'pulsion "rom the esteemed brotherhood o" la$!ers.