View full case

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO

FACTS:

Nazaria S. Hernandez sought the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go in 1961 to handle her financial problems after her husband left her and her son. Atty. Go advised Hernandez to give him her land titles for several lots in Zamboanga City so he could sell them and use the proceeds to pay her creditors. Hernandez agreed to this condition. Atty. Go also convinced Hernandez to execute deeds of sale for other lots she owned, which he redeemed when the mortgages fell due. In 1974, Hernandez discovered that Atty. Go did not sell her lots as agreed, but instead used his own funds to pay off her creditors and registered the land titles under his own name. A complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Go in 1975. Atty. Go's motion to dismiss was denied, and he was required to submit his answer. Atty. Go denied the allegations, claiming that he sold the lots in good faith to various buyers. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for further investigation. The case was eventually referred to the IBP, where a Commissioner of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline conducted an investigation. The Commissioner found that all of Hernandez's properties were currently owned by Atty. Go, except for one lot that was returned to her. It was also discovered that Atty. Go notarized the documents involving the properties redeemed by Hernandez, which ended up in his name. The Commissioner concluded that Atty. Go's actions constituted the practice of law and a breach of his obligations as Hernandez's legal adviser. As a result, the Commissioner recommended Atty. Go's disbarment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Atty. Jose C. Go engaged in illegal and unethical practices in his dealings with the complainant, including the execution of deeds of sale without any consideration.

  2. Whether or not Atty. Jose C. Go violated his duty as a legal adviser and counsel to the complainant by taking advantage of her trust and confidence.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds Atty. Jose C. Go guilty of engaging in illegal and unethical practices and violating his duty as a legal adviser and counsel to the complainant. The evidence presented shows that he persuaded the complainant to execute deeds of sale in his favor without any monetary consideration, and subsequently registered the properties in his own name. Atty. Go also admitted to being one of the purchasers of the complainant's properties. Such actions demonstrate a clear violation of his duty to act faithfully and honestly as a legal adviser and counsel, and a breach of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the complainant.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Lawyers have a duty to act faithfully and honestly in their dealings with their clients, and must not take advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in them.

  • Lawyers must adhere to their obligations and duties as legal advisers and counsel to ensure the best interests of their clients are protected.

  • Lawyers must provide a detailed report to their clients regarding the handling of their cases and the disposition of their properties if necessary.