Scribd
Upload
179 views2 pages

Legal Ethics Case: Uy vs. Gonzales

Respondent lawyer initially agreed to file a petition for a new land title certificate on behalf of the complainant. However, when it was time to file, the respondent demanded more money than agreed and then instead filed a criminal complaint against the complainant for falsifying public documents. The complaint contained details about the land title that were disclosed during their lawyer-client relationship. The IBP found the respondent guilty of violating ethics rules. However, the court held that no lawyer-client relationship existed as the respondent was redeeming land from the complainant personally. Therefore, the criminal complaint did not violate rules regarding disclosing client information. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
179 views2 pages

Legal Ethics Case: Uy vs. Gonzales

Respondent lawyer initially agreed to file a petition for a new land title certificate on behalf of the complainant. However, when it was time to file, the respondent demanded more money than agreed and then instead filed a criminal complaint against the complainant for falsifying public documents. The complaint contained details about the land title that were disclosed during their lawyer-client relationship. The IBP found the respondent guilty of violating ethics rules. However, the court held that no lawyer-client relationship existed as the respondent was redeeming land from the complainant personally. Therefore, the criminal complaint did not violate rules regarding disclosing client information. The petition was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

WILLIAM S. UY vs. ATTY.

FERMIN
L. GONZALES
A.C. No. 5280 : March 30, 2004

FACTS:

Complainant engaged the services of respondent lawyer to prepare and file a petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the circumstances surrounding
the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to him
a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court.

When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to complainant’s office demanding a
certain amount other than what was previously agreed upon. Respondent left his office after
reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find out later that
instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-
complaint against him with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification of Public
Documents. The letter-complaint contained facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer
certificate of title that was the subject matter of the petition which respondent was supposed to have
filed.

Respondent claims that he gave complainant a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the
petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant; that there
was no longer any professional relationship between the two of them when he filed the letter-
complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the letter-
complaint for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register
of Deeds.

The IBP found him guilty of violating Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of Professional
Responsibility and recommended for his suspension for 6 months.

ISSUE:  Whether or not respondent violated Canon 21 of the CPR?

HELD:
No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public
Documents filed by respondent against complainant were obtained by respondent due to his
personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the issuance of
the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant.  Clearly, there was no attorney-
client relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of
the petition was only incidental to their personal transaction.

Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his
professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and
therefore, when respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which
necessarily involved alleging facts that would constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way,
violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant to a misconduct that is wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good
demeanor or that renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. To hold otherwise
would be precluding any lawyer from instituting a case against anyone to protect his personal or
proprietary interests.

PETITION DISMISSED for lack of merit.

You might also like