*
A.C. No. 1526. January 31, 2005.

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED),

SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S. HERNANDEZ, JR.,
complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Code of Professional

Responsibility; Gross Misconduct; The Code of Professional
Responsibility is the principal source of ethical rules for lawyers in
this jurisdiction; The act of a lawyer in acquiring for himself the
lots of his client which were entrusted to him are, by any standard,
acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous wrong, a forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not a

_______________

* EN BANC.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Go

mere error in judgment.—Canon 16 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility, the principal source of ethical rules for lawyers in
this jurisdiction, provides: “A lawyer shall hold in trust all
moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession.” Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of
acquiring for himself complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by
any standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous
wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in character,
and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.
Such conduct on the part of respondent degrades not only himself
but also the name and honor of the legal profession. He violated
this Court’s mandate that lawyers must at all times conduct
themselves, especially in their dealing with their clients and the
public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach.
Same; Same; Same; Membership in the legal profession is a
privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no
longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the
public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the
Supreme Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him
the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the
privilege.—Respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to remain in
the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar
when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly
immoral acts. We have been exacting in our demand for integrity
and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are
expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege. And whenever it
is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the
trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not
only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one
of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its
Bar, to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his conduct,
blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also
the legal profession.
Same; Same; Same; It is a time-honored rule that good moral
character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the
practice of law—its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the legal profession.—Public interest requires that
an attorney

VOL. 450, JANUARY 31, 2005 3

Hernandez vs. Go

should exert his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of
his clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and
candor not only protects his client’s cause; he also serves the ends
of justice and does honor to the bar and helps maintain the
respect of the community to the legal profession. It is a time-
honored rule that good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law. Its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the legal profession.
 Same; Same; Same; A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended
for gross misconduct in office.—Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred
or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral
conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6)
violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party without authority to do so.
Same; Same; Same; A lawyer who takes advantage of his
client’s financial plight to acquire the latter’s properties for his
own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the
fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession; Considering
the depravity of respondent’s offense, he deserves the ultimate
penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of
lawyers.—Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, we
find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. It bears
reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client’s
financial plight to acquire the latter’s properties for his own
benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus, for violation
of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which constitutes gross misconduct, and
consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of the
Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal
profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of
expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

4

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Go

          Feliciano C. Tumale and Narvaro Belar-Navarro for

respondent.

PER CURIAM:
1
For our resolution is the verified letter-complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Jose C. Go dated June 23, 1975
filed by Nazaria S. Hernandez (now deceased). Both parties
are from Zamboanga City.
The allegations in the letter-complaint are:
 Sometime in 1961, complainant’s husband abandoned
her and her son, Luciano S. Hernandez, Jr. Shortly
thereafter, her husband’s numerous creditors demanded
payments of his loans. Fearful that the various mortgage
contracts involving her properties will be foreclosed and
aware of impending suits for sums of money against her,
complainant engaged the legal services of Atty. Jose C. Go,
herein respondent.
Respondent instilled in complainant a feeling of
helplessness, fear, embarrassment, and social humiliation.
He advised her to give him her land titles covering Lots
848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P at Zamboanga City so he could
sell them to enable her to pay her creditors. He then
persuaded her to execute deeds of sale in his favor without
any monetary or valuable consideration. Complainant
agreed on condition that he would sell the lots and from the
proceeds pay her creditors.
Complainant also owned Lots 2118, 2139, and 1141-A,
likewise located in Zamboanga City, which were mortgaged
to her creditors. When the mortgages fell due, respondent
redeemed the lots. Again, he convinced her to execute
deeds of sale involving those lots in his favor. As a result,
respondent became the registered owner of all the lots
belonging to complainant.
Sometime in 1974, complainant came to know that
respondent did not sell her lots as agreed upon. Instead, he
paid her

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 25-26.

VOL. 450, JANUARY 31, 2005 5

Hernandez vs. Go

creditors with his own funds and had her land titles
registered in his name, depriving her of her real properties
worth millions.
In our Resolution dated September 24, 1975, respondent
was required to file his comment on the complaint.
Instead of filing his comment, respondent submitted a
motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint is
premature since there is pending before the then Court 2
of
First Instance of Zamboanga City Civil Case No. 1781 for
recovery of ownership and declaration of nullity of deeds of
sale filed by complainant against him involving the subject
lots.
On November 14, 1975, we issued a Resolution denying
respondent’s motion and requiring him to submit his
answer.
In his answer dated December 19, 1975, respondent
denied the allegations in the instant complaint. He averred
that he sold, in good faith, complainant’s lots to various
buyers, including himself, for valuable consideration. On
several occasions, he extended financial assistance to
complainant and even invited her to live with his family.
His children used to call her “Lola” due to her frequent
visits to his residence. He prayed that the complaint be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

_______________

2 On January 19, 1990, Civil Case No. 1781 was decided by the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 15, against the
respondent. The Deeds of Sale executed in favor of respondent covering
Lots 848-A-1, Lots 849-P and 849-Q, Lots 2118 and 2129, Lots 1141-A and
B were declared null and void for being simulated. The certificates of title
issued in the names of the respondent and his children were ordered
cancelled and respondent was ordered to reconvey the properties and all
the improvements thereon to the complainant (Records, Vol. III, pp. 75-
114). On appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 27310, the Appellate Court
rendered its Decision affirming with modification the trial court’s
judgment (Records, Vol. III, pp. 150-179).

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Go

On January 17, 1977, we referred the case to the Office of

the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
It was only on March 13, 1990 or after 13 years, 1 month
and 26 days that the OSG filed a motion to refer the
instant case to the IBP for the retaking of the testimonies
of complainant’s witnesses and the submission of its report
and recommendation.
On April 4, 1990, we issued a Resolution referring the
case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation dated June 15, 2004 of
Atty. Lydia A. Navarro, Commissioner of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, is quoted as follows:
“A careful examination and evaluation of the evidence submitted
by the parties showed that all the properties of the complainant
are presently owned by the respondent by virtue of several deeds
of sale executed by the complainant in favor of the respondent
without monetary consideration except Lot 849-D situated in
Tomas Claudio which was returned by the respondent to the
complainant on September 5, 1974.
It is evident from the records that respondent was the one who
notarized the documents involving the said properties redeemed
or repurchased by the complainant from her creditors which
ended up in respondent’s name like in the deed of sale executed
by Victoriano Dejerano in favor of Nazaria Hernandez over Lots
1141-A-3-A and 1141-A-3-B; deed of sale executed by Antonio
Masrahon on September 3, 1961 regarding Lot No. 1141-A; deed
of absolute sale executed by Francisco Esperat over the Curuan
properties on November 9, 1971 and the cancellation of the
mortgage executed by Alfonso Enriquez on July 18, 1964 over the
Tomas Claudio properties.
The foregoing legal activities and operations of the respondent
in addition to his having discussed, advised and gave solutions to
complainant’s legal problems and liabilities to her creditors and
even requested her creditors for extension of time to pay
complainant’s accounts constitute practice of law as legal counsel
for consultation aside from representing complainant in other
cases; a mute proof of

VOL. 450, JANUARY 31, 2005 7

Hernandez vs. Go

a lawyer-client relations between them, a fact also admitted by

the respondent.
It is incumbent upon the respondent to have rendered a
detailed report to the complainant on how he paid complainant’s
creditors without selling her properties. Instead of selling to
buyers at higher price, he paid them out of his own funds; then
later on admitted that he was one of the purchasers of
complainant’s properties in utter disregard of their agreement
and no evidence was submitted by the respondent concerning the
value of the said sale of complainant’s properties.
As such, respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in
his obligation and duty as complainant’s legal adviser and counsel
when he took advantage of the trust and confidence reposed in
him by the complainant in ultimately putting complainant’s
properties in his name and possession in violation of Canon 17 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that respondent Atty. Jose C. Go be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months
from receipt hereof and the IBP Chapter where he is a registered
member be furnished a copy of the same for implementation
hereof, subject to the approval of the Honorable Members of the
Board of Governors.”

On July 30, 2004, the IBP Board of Governors passed

Resolution No. XVI-2004-39 adopting and approving the
Report of Commissioner Navarro with modification in the
sense that the recommended penalty of suspension from
the practice of law was increased from six (6) months to
three (3) years.
We sustain the Resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors finding that respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. However, we have to modify its
recommended penalty.
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the
principal source of ethical rules for lawyers in this
jurisdiction, provides:

“A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of

his client that may come into his possession.”

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Go

Respondent breached this Canon. His acts of acquiring for

himself complainant’s lots entrusted to him are, by any
standard, acts constituting gross misconduct, a grievous
wrong, a forbidden act, a dereliction in duty, willful in
character, and implies
3
a wrongful intent and not mere
error in judgment. Such conduct on the part of respondent
degrades not only himself but also the name and honor of
the legal profession. He violated this Court’s mandate that
lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in
their dealing with their clients and the public at large,
4
with
honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.
Canon 17 of the same Code states:

“A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he

shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.”

The records show that complainant reposed such high

degree of trust and confidence in herein respondent, that
when she engaged his services, she entrusted to him her
land titles and allowed him to sell her lots, believing that
the proceeds thereof would be used to pay her creditors.
Respondent, however, abused her trust and confidence
when he did not sell her properties to others but to himself
and spent his own money to pay her obligations. As
correctly observed by Investigating IBP Commissioner
Lydia Navarro, respondent is duty-bound to render a
detailed report to the complainant on how much he sold the
latter’s lots and the amounts paid to her creditors.
Obviously, had he sold the lots to other buyers,
complainant could have earned more. Records show that
she did not receive any amount from respondent. Clearly,
respondent did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his
duty as complainant’s counsel.

_______________

3Whitson vs. Atienza, A.C. No. 5535, August 28, 2003, 410 SCRA 10, 15,
citing Osop vs. Fontanilla, 365 SCRA 398 (2001).
4Gatchalian Promotions Talent Pool, Inc. vs. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017,
September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 406, 417, citing Resurreccion vs. Sayson,
300 SCRA 129 (1998).

VOL. 450, JANUARY 31, 2005 9

Hernandez vs. Go

Undoubtedly, respondent’s conduct has made him unfit to

remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen
below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. We have
been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral
character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all
times to 5uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and refrain from any act or omission which
might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public
in the fidelity,
6
honesty, and integrity of the legal
profession.
7
Membership in the legal profession is a
privilege. And whenever it is made to appear that an
attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of
his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but
also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its
officers and gave him the privilege of
8
ministering within its
Bar, to withdraw the privilege. Respondent, by his
conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of
the Bar, but also the legal profession.
 Public interest requires that an attorney should exert
his best efforts and ability to protect the interests of his
clients. A lawyer who performs that duty with diligence
and candor not only protects his client’s cause; he also
serves the ends of justice and does honor to the bar and
helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal
profession.

_______________

5Sipin-Nabor vs. Baterina, A.C. No. 4073, June 28, 2001, 360 SCRA 6;
Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, A.C. No. 5081, March 24, 2003, 399 SCRA
422, citing Tapucar vs. Tapucar, 355 Phil. 66, 74; 293 SCRA 331 (1998).
6Manalang, et al. vs. Atty. Francisco F. Angeles, supra, citing Maligsa
vs. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997).
7Lao vs. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 227, citing
Dumadag vs. Lumaya, 334 SCRA 513 (2000), Arrieta vs. Llosa, 346 Phil.
932; 282 SCRA 248 (1997), NBI vs. Reyes, 326 SCRA 109 (2000);
Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra.
8Eustaquio, et al. vs. Rimorin, supra, citing In Re: Almacen, No. L-
27654, 31 SCRA 562, 601-602 (1970); In Re: Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24 (1920); In
Re: Sotto, 38 Phil. 532, 549 (1918).

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Hernandez vs. Go

It is a time-honored rule that good moral character is not

only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law. Its continued possession
9
is also essential for remaining
in the legal profession.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by
this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2)
malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly
immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8)
willfully appearing 10
as an attorney for a party without
authority to do so. 11
In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, we ordered the disbarment
of lawyer when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into
entrusting him with all her money and later refused to
return
12
the same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses
III, we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal or
failure to account for the P50,000.00 he received
13
from a
client to settle a case. In Docena vs. Limson, we expelled
from the brotherhood of lawyers, an attorney who extorted
money from his client through 14 deceit and
misrepresentation. In Busiños vs. Ricafort, an attorney
was stripped of his license to practice law for
misappropriating his client’s money.
Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, we
find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. It bears
reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his
client’s financial plight to acquire the latter’s properties for
his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public
in the

_______________

9 People vs. Tuanda, 181 SCRA 692 (1990); Leda vs. Tabang, 206 SCRA
395 (1992).
10Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Occeña, 433 Phil. 138, 155; 383
SCRA 636, 650 (2002).
11 A.M. No. 2884, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 93.
12 CBD Adm. Case No. 313, January 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 586.
13 A.C. No. 2387, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 262.
14 A.C. No. 4349, December 22, 1997, 283 SCRA 407.

11

VOL. 450, JANUARY 31, 2005 11

Hernandez vs. Go

fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus,

for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross
misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the
high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of
the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the
ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed
brotherhood of lawyers.
WHEREFORE, respondent JOSE S. GO is found guilty
of gross misconduct and is DISBARRED from the practice
of law. His name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all
courts throughout the country.
SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-
 Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur.
     Callejo, Sr., J., On Official Leave.

Jose S. Go disbarred for gross misconduct.

Notes.—In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial

that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a
proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to
purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect
the public and the courts. (Zaguirre vs. Castillo, 398 SCRA
658 [2003])
Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such
as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds
and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real
property under the name of his client if not utilized, must
be returned immediately to his client upon demand
therefor. (Barnachea vs. Quiocho, 399 SCRA 1 [2003])

——o0o——

12

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.