FACTS:

Complainants Leonardo L. Sarmiento and Richard G. Halili filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Gregorio C. Fernando, Jr. Complainants were business associates engaged in real estate transactions. They met respondent in 2013, who proposed the sale of a parcel of land to complainants. Respondent claimed he was the absolute owner of the land and had been duly conveyed the property by his parents through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA). Trusting respondent's representations, complainants agreed to purchase the land. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed and the title was transferred to one of the complainants.

However, a complaint was later filed seeking nullification of the SPA, Deed of Sale, and the title. It was discovered that respondent was not the absolute owner of the land and the SPA was forged. Respondent's father had already passed away before the purported execution of the SPA, and the forgery of his mother's signature was evident. It was also revealed that respondent had living siblings who were also heirs to the property. Complainants were forced to enter into a settlement with respondent's mother and the heirs of respondent's father to settle the dispute.

The complainants demanded reimbursement from respondent, but he refused. Complainants then filed an estafa complaint and a disbarment petition against respondent. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found sufficient evidence to recommend disbarment against respondent, citing forgery, deceit, and dishonesty in his dealings. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the complainants have legal personality to file the petition for disbarment.

2. Whether the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 14 April 2012 is a forgery.

3. Whether the respondent received and pocketed the payment made by the buyers of the subject land.

4. Whether the respondent refused to return the amount of P2,992,000.00 to the buyers despite proper demands.

RULING:

1. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) adopted the recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) to disbar the respondent. The evidence submitted by the complainants established that the respondent committed forgery, received and pocketed the payment, and refused to return the amount despite proper demands. The respondent failed to meet the issues squarely and discredit the evidence against him. Therefore, the respondent is deemed a legal misfit and cannot be allowed to practice the legal profession.

PRINCIPLES:

• Forgery is a ground for disbarment.

• A lawyer who engages in dishonest conduct and chicanery is unfit to practice law.

• A lawyer should not employ deceit or dishonesty in his dealings.