2/3/2017 A.C.No.

8010

ENBANC

KELDSTEMMERIK,A.C.No.8010
representedbyATTYS.
HERMINIOA.LIWANAGand
WINSTONP.L.ESGUERRA,
Complainant,Present:
PUNO,C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARESSANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
versusCARPIOMORALES,
CHICONAZARIO,
VELASCO,JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTAand
BERSAMIN,JJ.

ATTY.LEONUELN.MAS,
Respondent.Promulgated:

June16,2009

xx


RESOLUTION
PerCuriam:

Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips to the
Philippines,hewasintroducedtorespondentAtty.LeonuelN.Mas.Thatwashismisfortune.
In one visit to the Philippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of the country and
expressed his interest in acquiring real property in the Philippines. He consulted respondent who
advisedhimthathecouldlegallyacquireandownrealpropertyinthePhilippines.Respondenteven
suggestedan86,998sq.m.propertyinQuarry,Agusuin,Cawag,Subic,Zambaleswiththeassurance
thatthepropertywasalienable.

Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as his
representative or attorneyinfact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the
preparation of the necessary documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and received a
P400,000fee.

Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark,
entrustingtheprocessingofthenecessarypaperworktorespondent.

Thereafter,respondentpreparedacontracttosellthepropertybetweencomplainant,representedby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 1/7
2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010

[1]
respondent,andacertainBonifaciodeMesa,thepurportedowneroftheproperty. Subsequently,
respondentpreparedandnotarizedadeedofsaleinwhichdeMesasoldandconveyedthepropertyto
[2]
a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million. Respondent also drafted and notarized an agreement
between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was complainant who provided the funds for the
[3]
purchaseoftheproperty. Complainantthengaverespondentthefullamountofthepurchaseprice
[4]
(P3.8million)forwhichrespondentissuedanacknowledgmentreceipt.

After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in touch with
respondenttoinquireaboutwhenthepropertycouldberegisteredinhisname.However,respondent
suddenlybecamescarceandrefusedtoanswercomplainantscallsandemailmessages.

When complainant visited the Philippines again in January 2005, he engaged the services of the
JimenezGonzalesLiwanagBelloValdezCaluya&FernandezLawOfficetoascertainthestatusof
thepropertyhesupposedlybought.Hewasdevastatedtolearnthatalienscouldnotownlandunder
Philippinelaws.Moreover,verificationattheCommunityEnvironment&NaturalResourcesOffice
(CENRO)oftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesinOlongapoCityrevealedthat
[5]
the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US Military Reservation. The
CENROalsostatedthatthepropertywasnotsubjecttodispositionoracquisitionunderRepublicAct
[6]
No.141.

[7]
Thereafter,complainant,throughhisattorneysinfact, exerteddiligenteffortstolocaterespondent
forpurposesofholdinghimaccountableforhisfraudulentacts.InquirywiththeOlongapoChapterof
theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines(IBP)disclosedthatrespondentwasinarrearsinhisannualdues
[8]
and that he had already abandoned his law office in Olongapo City. Search of court records of
caseshandledbyrespondentonlyyieldedhisabandonedofficeaddressinOlongapoCity.

Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar
[9]
Discipline(CBD)oftheIBP. Hedeploredrespondentsactsofseriousmisconduct.Inparticular,he
sought the expulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely misrepresenting that a
foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with
[10]
complainantsP3.8million.

Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his last known
address.Neitherdidheappearinthescheduledmandatoryconference.Inthisconnection,theCBD
found that respondent abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City after his transaction with
[11]
complainantandthathedidnotseeitfittocontestthechargesagainsthim.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 2/7
2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010
[11]
complainantandthathedidnotseeitfittocontestthechargesagainsthim.

TheCBDruledthatrespondentusedhispositionasalawyertomisleadcomplainantonthematterof
[12]
land ownership by a foreigner. He even went through the motion of preparing falsified and
fictitious contracts, deeds and agreements. And for all these shameless acts, he collected P400,000
[13]
fromcomplainant.Worse,hepocketedtheP3.8millionandabscondedwithit.

The CBD found respondent to be nothing more than an embezzler who misused his
professional status as an attorney as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with
[14]
complainants money. Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and
confidence reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended the disbarment of respondent.
[15]

TheBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPadoptedthefindingsandrecommendationoftheCBDwiththe
modificationthatrespondentwasfurtherrequiredtoreturntheamountofP4.2milliontorespondent.
[16]

WeagreewiththeIBP.

SUFFICIENCYOFNOTICEOF
THEDISBARMENTPROCEEDINGS


We shall first address a threshold issue: was respondent properly given notice of the disbarment
proceedingsagainsthim?Yes.

The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he appear during the
scheduled mandatory conference. Respondent in fact abandoned his last known address, his law
officeinOlongapoCity,afterhecommittedtheembezzlement.

Respondentshouldnotbeallowedtobenefitfromhisdisappearingact.Hecanneitherdefeat
this Courts jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the
mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders and
processesonrespondentsofficewassufficientnoticetohim.

Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice
requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus considered to have waived it. The law does not
[17]
require that the impossible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile. The law obliges no one to
perform an impossibility. Laws and rules must be interpreted in a way that they are in accordance
[18]
withlogic,commonsense,reasonandpracticality.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 3/7
2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010
withlogic,commonsense,reasonandpracticality.

In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National
[19]
Officeortheirrespectivechapters ofanychangeinofficeorresidentialaddressandothercontact
[20]
details. In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential
address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a
lawyerforpurposesofadministrativeproceedingsagainsthim.


RESPONDENTSADMINISTRATIVEINFRACTIONS
ANDHISLIABILITYTHEREFOR

Lawyers,asmembersofanobleprofession,havethedutytopromoterespectforthelawand
upholdtheintegrityofthebar.Asmenandwomenentrustedwiththelaw,theymustensurethatthe
lawfunctionstoprotectlibertyandnotasaninstrumentofoppressionordeception.

Respondenthasbeenweighedbytheexactingstandardsofthelegalprofessionandhasbeen
foundwanting.
Respondentcommittedaseriousbreachofhisoathasalawyer.Heisalsoguiltyofculpableviolation
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility,thecodeofethicsofthelegalprofession.

[21]
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.
Thatoathisneithermereformalceremonynorhollowwords.Itisasacredtrustthatshouldbeupheld
[22]
andkeptinviolableatalltimes.

[23]
Lawyersareservantsofthelaw andthelawistheirmaster.Theyshouldnotsimplyobey
thelaws,theyshouldalsoinspirerespectforandobediencetheretobyservingasexemplarsworthy
ofemulation.Indeed,thatisthefirstpreceptoftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LANDANDPROMOTERESPECTFORLAWANDLEGALPROCESSES.


Section7,ArticleXIIoftheConstitutionprovides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public
domain.

This Court has interpreted this provision, as early as the 1947 case Krivenko v. Register of
[24]
Deeds, tomeanthatundertheConstitution,aliensmaynotacquireprivateoragriculturallands,
[25]
includingresidentiallands.Theprovisionisadeclarationofimperativeconstitutionalpolicy.

Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 4/7
2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy,
showeddisrespectfortheConstitutionandgrossignoranceofbasiclaw.Worse,hepreparedspurious
documentsthatheknewwerevoidandillegal.

By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de
Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of
[26]
complainant,hefalsifiedpublicdocumentsandknowinglyviolatedtheAntiDummyLaw.

Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could
legallyandvalidlyacquirerealestateinthePhilippinesandbyassuringcomplainantthattheproperty
wasalienable,respondentdeliberatelyfoistedafalsehoodonhisclient.Hedidnotgivedueregardto
thetrustandconfidencereposedinhimbycomplainant.Instead,hedeceivedcomplainantandmisled
himintopartingwithP400,000forservicesthatwerebothillegalandunprofessional.Moreover,by
pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the
property,respondentcommittedafraudulentactthatwascriminalinnature.

Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after
unethicalact,wantonlyviolatinglawsandprofessionalstandards.

For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility:

Rule1.01.Alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,dishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct.

Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lesseningconfidenceinthelegalsystem.

CANON7ALAWYERSHALLATALLTIMESUPHOLDTHEINTEGRITYANDDIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.

CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL
HISDEALINGSANDTRANSACTIONSWITHHISCLIENT.

CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HISCLIENTTHATMAYCOMEINTOHISPOSSESSION.

CANON17ALAWYEROWESFIDELITYTOTHECAUSEOFHISCLIENTANDHESHALL
BEMINDFULOFTHETRUSTANDCONFIDENCEREPOSEDINHIM.(emphasissupplied)

Alawyerwhoresortstonefariousschemestocircumventthelawanduseshislegalknowledge
tofurtherhisselfishendstothegreatprejudiceofothers,posesaclearandpresentdangertotherule
oflawandtothelegalsystem.Hedoesnotonlytarnishtheimageofthebaranddegradetheintegrity
anddignityofthelegalprofession,healsobetrayseverythingthatthelegalprofessionstandsfor.

ItisrespondentandhiskindthatgivelawyeringabadnameandmakelaymensupportDick
[27]
theButcherscall,Killalllawyers! Adisgracetotheirprofessionalbrethren,theymustbepurged
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 5/7
 2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010

fromthebar.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of
CourtisdirectedtoimmediatelystrikeoutthenameofrespondentfromtheRollofAttorneys.

RespondentisherebyORDEREDtoreturntocomplainantKeldStemmerikthetotalamount
ofP4.2millionwithinterestat12%perannumfromthedateofpromulgationofthisresolutionuntil
full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the
amountwithintendaysfrompayment.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ORDERED to locate Atty. Mas and file the
appropriate criminal charges against him. The NBI is further DIRECTED to regularly report the
progressofitsactioninthiscasetothisCourtthroughtheBarConfidant.

LetcopiesofthisresolutionbefurnishedtheBarConfidantwhoshallforthwithrecorditinthe
personal file of respondent, the Court Administrator who shall inform all courts of the Philippines,
theIntegratedBarofthePhilippineswhichshalldisseminatecopiestoallitschaptersandmembers
andalladministrativeandquasijudicialagenciesoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.

SOORDERED.



REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice




LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice




ANTONIOT.CARPIO RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR. ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

RESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm AssociateJustice 6/7
2/3/2017 A.C.No.8010

AssociateJustice AssociateJustice





DIOSDADOM.PERALTALUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

Onofficialleave.
[1]
Rollo,pp.1617.
[2]
Id.,pp.1820.ThecircumstanceofthefictitioussaletoGonzaleswasneveradequatelydiscussedbythecomplainant.However,coupled
withthefactthatrespondentpreparedandnotarizedanotheragreement(thistimebetweenGonzalesandcomplainant)whereby
Gonzales recognized complainant as the source of funds, this showed that the sale to Gonzales was a link in the chain of acts
committedbyrespondenttodefraudcomplainant.
[3]
Id.,pp.2223.
[4]
Id.,p.21.
[5]
CertificationdatedFebruary7,2005.Id.,p.24.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Attys.HerminioA.LiwanagandWinstonP.L.Esguerra.
[8]
Atthe3rd FlooroftheMelyRoseBuildingat3423rd Street,WBB,OlongapoCity.
[9]
Rollo,pp.18.
[10]
Id.
[11]
ReportandRecommendationdatedMarch31,2008pennedbyInvestigatingCommissionerRicoA.Limpingco.Id.,pp.4547.
[12]
Id.
[13]
Id.
[14]
Id.
[15]
Id.
[16]
ResolutionNo.XVIII2008423datedMay22,2008.Id.,pp.4344.
[17]
Santos,Jr.v.PNOCExplorationCorporation,G.R.No.170943,23September2008.
[18]
Id.
[19]
Incasetheupdateisdoneinoneschapter,thesaidchaptershallpromptlynotifytheIBPNationalOfficeaboutthematter.
[20]
Inthisconnection,therelevantportionofSection19,ArticleIIoftheByLawsoftheIBPprovides:

Everychangeafterregistrationinrespecttoanyofthemattersabovespecified[includingofficeandresidenceaddresses]shallbereported
withinsixty(60)daystotheChapterSecretary,whoshallinturnpromptlyreportthechangetotheNationalOffice.
[21]
TheLawyersOathwhichistakenbyallmembersofthebarasaprerequisitefortheiradmissiontothelegalprofessionstates:
I,__________,dosolemnlyswearthatIwillmaintainallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippinesIwill
supportitsConstitutionandobeythelawsaswellasthelegalordersofthedulyconstitutedauthoritiesthereinIwilldo
nofalsehood,norconsenttothedoingofanyincourtIwillnotwittinglyorwillinglypromoteorsueanygroundless,
falseorunlawfulsuit,orgiveaidnorconsenttothesameIwilldelaynomanformoneyormalice,andwillconduct
myselfasalawyeraccordingtothebestofmyknowledgeanddiscretion,withallgoodfaithandfidelityaswelltothe
courtsastomyclientsandIimposeuponmyselfthisvoluntaryobligationswithoutanymentalreservationorpurposeof
evasion.SohelpmeGod.
[22]
TingDumaliv.Torres,A.C.No.5161,14April2004,427SCRA108.
[23]
Catuv.Rellosa,A.C.No.5738,19February2008,546SCRA209.
[24]
79Phil.461(1947).
[25]
Godinezv.PakLuen,205Phil.176(1983).
[26]
CommonwealthActNo.108,asamendedbyPresidentialDecreeNo.715.
[27]
Shakespeare,W.,HenrytheVI,PartII,ActIV,Scene2,Line72.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/8010.htm 7/7