Scribd
Upload
273 views1 page

NAKPIL VS VALDEZ - A.C. No. 2040 - March 4, 1998

Atty. Valdez purchased a summer home in Baguio City for his client Nakpil since Nakpil lacked funds. They agreed Valdez would hold the property in trust until Nakpil could buy it back. However, when Nakpil died, Valdez excluded the property from his estate and transferred title to his own company. The Supreme Court ruled that Valdez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of his position as Nakpil's lawyer for his own benefit. Business transactions between lawyers and clients are closely watched to prevent abuse, and Valdez's actions deprived his client of the property through improper use of his legal expertise. He was suspended from practice for one year.

Uploaded by

Donna Grace Guyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
273 views1 page

NAKPIL VS VALDEZ - A.C. No. 2040 - March 4, 1998

Atty. Valdez purchased a summer home in Baguio City for his client Nakpil since Nakpil lacked funds. They agreed Valdez would hold the property in trust until Nakpil could buy it back. However, when Nakpil died, Valdez excluded the property from his estate and transferred title to his own company. The Supreme Court ruled that Valdez violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by taking advantage of his position as Nakpil's lawyer for his own benefit. Business transactions between lawyers and clients are closely watched to prevent abuse, and Valdez's actions deprived his client of the property through improper use of his legal expertise. He was suspended from practice for one year.

Uploaded by

Donna Grace Guyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

NAKPIL VS VALDEZ / A.C. No.

2040 / March 4, 1998

FACTS:
Nakpil, husband of the complainant, became interested in purchasing a summer residence in
Moran Street, Baguio City. For lack of funds, he requested Atty. Valdez to purchase the Moran
property for him. They agreed that respondent would keep the property in thrust for the
Nakpils until the latter could buy it back. Pursuant to their agreement, respondent obtained
two (2) loans from a bank which he used to purchase and renovate the property. Title was then
issued in respondent’s name. When Jose Nakpil died, Respondent acted as the legal counsel
and accountant of his widow. Respondent acted as the legal counsel and accountant of his
widow. Respondent excluded the Moran property from the inventory of Jose’s estate and
transferred his title to the Moran property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the acts of Atty. Valdez violates  the Code of Professional Responsibility

RULING:
Yes. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction
must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. Business transactions between an
attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts
carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy
position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of
innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor. Respondent’s
misuse of his legal expertise to deprive his client of the Moran property is clearly unethical. a
lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the
bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. Atty. Valdez is suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year

You might also like