Disbarment for gross ignorance of the law

One of the fundamental principles of Philippine constitutional law is that ownership of

land is generally reserved only to Filipinos. Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution
provides: 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. On the other hand, Article XII, Section 8 provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands,
subject to limitations provided by law. To summarize:
Under the Constitution, private lands may be transferred or conveyed to the following:
(a) Filipino citizens;
(b) Corporations and associations at least 60% of the capital of which is owned by
Filipino citizens, since they have the capacity to hold lands of the public domain;
(c) Aliens but only in cases of hereditary succession; and
(d) Natural born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship subject to limitations
provided by law. (see 2 Philippine Constitutional Law, p. 917 [2004])
One would think that all Philippine lawyers know this fundamental principle but that
does not appear to be the case. In Keld Stemmerik, represented by Attys.
Herminio. Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra vs. Atty. Leonuel N. Mas, A.C. No.
8010, June 16, 2009, Keld Stemmerik, a Danish national, expressed interest in buying
land in the Philippines and Atty. Mas advised him that he can legally acquire and own
land in the Philippines.
Keld gave Atty. Mas PhP3.8 million as purchase price of the property and returned to
Denmark. Atty. Mas then prepared a contract to sell between Keld (with Atty. Mas as
representative) and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, who allegedly owns the property. Atty.
Mas then prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold the property to
a certain Ailyn Gonzales for PhP3.8 million. Atty. Mas also drafted an agreement
between Keld and Gonzales stating that it was Keld who provided the funds for the
purchase of the property.
After the various agreements were signed, Keld tried to get in touch with Atty. Mas, who
never replied to Kelds calls and email messages. When Keld returned to the Philippines,
he learned that he could not own land in the Philippines. In addition, a verification made
at the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources in Olongapo City revealed that the property was
inalienable as it was situated within the former US Military Reservation.
Keld tried to locate Atty. Mas but never found him. It appears that Atty. Mas abandoned
his law practice in Olongapo City. Keld then filed a complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Mas with the Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP). The CBD and the IBP Board of Governors recommended the
disbarment of Atty. Mas. The Supreme Court agreed that Atty. Mas should be
disbarred. According to the Supreme Court:
This Court has interpreted [Article XII, Section 7], as early as the 1947 case Krivenko v.
Register of Deeds, to mean that under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private
or agricultural lands, including residential lands. The provision is a declaration of
imperative constitutional policy.

Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional

policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse,
he prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
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 complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the AntiDummy Law.
Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner
could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring
complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a
falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed
in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him into parting
with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by
pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase
of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
The Supreme Court stated that Atty. Mas showed gross ignorance of the law. Based
solely on the facts recounted in the ruling, it is likely that Atty. Mas knew that aliens
could not own land, and for that reason, the deed of sale he prepared was between de
Mesa and Gonzales. If Atty. Mas was not aware of the constitutional prohibition against
alien ownership, then he would have likely placed Keld as the purchaser in the deed of
sale. In asking Gonzales to acknowledge that the funds for the purchase of the
property came from Keld, it seems that Atty. Mas was using Gonzales as a dummy for
Keld.
In 2005, Atty. Pedro Linsangan filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Nicomedes Tolentino alleging that Atty. Tolentino, through his paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, pirated a client of Atty. Linsangan. Said client later executed an
affidavit in support of Atty. Linsangans allegations.
Atty. Linsangan also questioned the propriety of Labianos calling card which
appears as follows:

FRONT
NICOMEDES TOLENTINO
LAW OFFICE
CONSULTANCY & MARITIME SERVICES
W/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Fe Marie L. Labiano
Paralegal
BACK
SERVICES OFFERED:
CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE
TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT,
INJURY,
ILLNESS,
SICKNESS,
DEATH

AND
INSURANCE
CLAIMS
ABROAD.

BENEFIT

In his defense, Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. He also denied

authorizing the printing of such calling cards.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino encroached upon the professional
services of Atty. Pedro Linsangan.
2. Whether or not Atty. Tolentino is liable for the improper calling card of Labiano.
HELD:
1. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 8.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. A lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the
latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for
his services. By recruiting Atty. Linsangans clients, Atty. Tolentino committed an
unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice.
2. Yes. Atty. Tolentino violated Rules 1.03, 2.03, and 16.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Although Atty. Tolentino initially denied knowing
Labiano, he admitted he actually knew her later in the proceedings. It is thus
clear that Labiano was connected to his law office. Through Labianos actions,
Atty. Tolentinos law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to
transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that Atty.
Tolentino could produce a more favorable result.
Labianos calling card is improper. The card made it appear that the law office
will finance legal actions for the clients. The rule is, a lawyer shall not lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client.
The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyers independence of mind so that the
free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to ensure
his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire devotion
and fidelity to the clients cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client in
connection with the clients case, the lawyer in effect acquires an interest in the
subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that
of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity
to the clients cause.
The phrase in the calling card which states w/ financial assistance, was
clearly used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change
counsels with a promise of loans to finance their legal actions.
However, since there is no substantial evidence to prove that Atty. Tolentino had
a personal and direct hand in the printing of said calling cards, he cannot be
punished with severity. At any rate, for all the infractions Atty. Tolentino
committed, he was suspended by the Supreme Court for one year.