Case Digest: Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent | A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent
A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012
Facts:
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.
It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use the money for personal use. The complainants demanded the return of the money to no avail.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00.
The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.
A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012
Facts:
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat – willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.
It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP 495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of the land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the Register of Deeds which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use the money for personal use. The complainants demanded the return of the money to no avail.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00.
The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the amount of PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.
solciacrim_pe Troy Boussad https://wakelet.com/wake/6iUSO_y25SlcQVst5h_9p
ReplyDeleteslugpanendpat