526 Phil.
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.C. NO. 6057, June 27, 2006
PETER T. DONTON, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O.
Tansingco ("respondent") for serious misconduct and deliberate violation of
Canon 1, [1] Rules 1.01[2] and 1.02[3] of the Code of Professional
Responsibility ("Code").
The Facts
In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton ("complainant") stated
that he filed a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of a public
document[4] against Duane O. Stier ("Stier"), Emelyn A. Maggay ("Maggay")
and respondent, as the notary public who notarized the Occupancy
Agreement.
The disbarment complaint arose when respondent filed a counter-charge for
perjury[5] against complainant. Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, stated
that:
5. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September 11,
1995 was prepared and notarized by me under the following
circumstances:
A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time resident of a
real property located at No. 33 Don Jose Street, Bgy. San
Roque, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City.
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier – a U.S. citizen
and thereby disqualified to own real property in his
name – agreed that the property be transferred in the name
of Mr. Donton, a Filipino.
C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested me to
prepare several documents that would guarantee recognition
of him being the actual owner of the property despite the
transfer of title in the name of Mr. Donton.
D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the
OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr. Stier's free
and undisturbed use of the property for his residence and
business operations. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT
was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to Mr.
Donton. [6]
Complainant averred that respondent's act of preparing the Occupancy
Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being a foreign national, is
disqualified to own real property in his name, constitutes serious misconduct
and is a deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that
respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something in violation of law
and assisting Stier in carrying out a dishonest scheme.
In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant
filed the disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant's
counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan, [7] because respondent refused to act as
complainant's witness in the criminal case against Stier and Maggay.
Respondent admitted that he "prepared and notarized" the Occupancy
Agreement and asserted its genuineness and due execution.
In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred the matter to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
The IBP's Report and Recommendation
In her Report dated 26 February 2004 ("Report"), Commissioner Milagros V.
San Juan ("Commissioner San Juan") of the IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline found respondent liable for taking part in a "scheme to circumvent
the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land in the
Philippines." Commissioner San Juan recommended respondent's suspension
from the practice of law for two years and the cancellation of his commission
as Notary Public.
In Resolution No. XVI-2004-222 dated 16 April 2004, the IBP Board of
Governors adopted, with modification, the Report and recommended
respondent's suspension from the practice of law for six months.
On 28 June 2004, the IBP Board of Governors forwarded the Report to the
Court as provided under Section 12(b), Rule 139-B[8] of the Rules of Court.
On 28 July 2004, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration before the
IBP. Respondent stated that he was already 76 years old and would already
retire by 2005 after the termination of his pending cases. He also said that his
practice of law is his only means of support for his family and his six minor
children.
In a Resolution dated 7 October 2004, the IBP denied the motion for
reconsideration because the IBP had no more jurisdiction on the case as the
matter had already been referred to the Court.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of
the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will
involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. [9] A
lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating
the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
[10]
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was
disqualified from owning real property. [11] Yet, in his motion for
reconsideration, [12] respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of
ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the
prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant's
name. But respondent provided "some safeguards" by preparing several
documents, [13] including the Occupancy Agreement, that would guarantee
Stier's recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in
complainant's name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in
circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of
lands[14] by preparing said documents.
Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath
and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to
evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his
knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to
malpractice in his office, for which he may be suspended. [15]
In Balinon v. De Leon, [16] respondent Atty. De Leon was suspended from
the practice of law for three years for preparing an affidavit that virtually
permitted him to commit concubinage. In In re: Santiago, [17] respondent
Atty. Santiago was suspended from the practice of law for one year for
preparing a contract which declared the spouses to be single again after nine
years of separation and allowed them to contract separately subsequent
marriages.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O.
Tansingco GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we SUSPEND respondent Atty.
Emmanuel O. Tansingco from the practice of law for SIX
MONTHS effective upon finality of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be
appended to respondent's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in the country for
their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Tinga, and Velasco, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
[1]Canon 1--A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
[2]Rule 1.01.--A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
[3] Rule 1.02.--A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.
[4]
Docketed as I.S. No. 02-2520 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Marikina City.
[5] Docketed as I.S. No. 03-0474.
[6] Rollo, pp. 15-16. Emphasis in the original.
[7]Respondent, in turn, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Bonifacio
A. Alentajan docketed as CBD Case No. 03-112.
[8] Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.-
xxx
(b) If the Board, by vote of a majority of its total membership,
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice
of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings
and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the
case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final
action.
[9] E. PINEDA, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 35-36 (1994).
[10] In re: Terrell, 2 Phil. 266 (1903).
[11] Rollo, p. 15.
[12] Id. at 99.
[13]In respondent's 30 December 2002 affidavit, he enumerated all the
documents he prepared for Stier:
A. A Deed of Sale over the property, which Mr. Stier could
consolidate in favor of any person of his choice at anytime;
[Note: The deed of Sale had an open date, and the name of the
transferee was to be indicated by Mr. Stier, at his discretion.]
B. Occupancy Agreement, recognizing Mr. Stier's free and
undisturbed use of the property for his residence and business
operations;
[Note: The Occupancy Agreement was tied up with a loan which
Mr. Stier had extended to Mr. Donton.]
C. Real Estate Mortgage over the property, which Mr. Stier could
enforce anytime; and
D. Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney to sell, mortgage or lease
the property, which Mr. Stier could exercise anytime.
[14] Article XII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
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.
[15] In re: Santiago, 70 Phil. 66 (1940).
[16] 94 Phil. 277 (1954).
[17] Supra.
