A.C. No.

1526 January 31, 2005

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED B
!UCIAN" S. HERNANDEZ, JR., complainant,
vs.
ATT. J"SE C. #", respondent.
FACTS:
Nazaria Hernandezs husband abandoned her and her son, Luciano S.
Hernandez, r. Shortl! therea"ter, her husbands numerous creditors
demanded pa!ments o" his loans. Fear"ul that the various mort#a#e contracts
involvin# her properties $ill be "oreclosed and a$are o" impendin# suits "or
sums o" mone! a#ainst her, complainant en#a#ed the le#al services o" Att!.
ose C. %o. &espondent instilled in complainant a "eelin# o" helplessness,
"ear, embarrassment, and social humiliation. He advised her to #ive him her
land titles so he could sell them to enable her to pa! her creditors. He then
persuaded her to e'ecute deeds o" sale in his "avor $ithout an! monetar! or
valuable consideration. Complainant a#reed on condition that he $ould sell
the lots and "rom the proceeds pa! her creditors. Complainant also o$ned
Lots $hich $ere mort#a#ed to her creditors. (hen the mort#a#es "ell due,
respondent redeemed the lots. A#ain, he convinced her to e'ecute deeds o"
sale involvin# those lots in his "avor. As a result, respondent became the
re#istered o$ner o" all the lots belon#in# to complainant. Sometime in
)*+,, complainant came to -no$ that respondent did not sell her lots as
a#reed upon. .nstead, he paid her creditors $ith his o$n "unds and had her
land titles re#istered in his name, deprivin# her o" her real properties $orth
millions. .n his ans$er, respondent denied the alle#ations and that he sold,
in #ood "aith, complainants lots to various bu!ers, includin# himsel", "or
valuable consideration. /n several occasions, he e'tended "inancial
assistance to complainant and even invited her to live $ith his "amil!. His
children used to call her 0Lola0 due to her "re1uent visits to his residence. He
pra!ed that the complaint be dismissed "or "ailure to state a cause o" action.
A care"ul e'amination and evaluation o" the evidence submitted b! the
parties sho$ed that all the properties o" the complainant are presentl! o$ned
b! the respondent b! virtue o" several deeds o" sale e'ecuted b! the
complainant in "avor o" the respondent $ithout monetar! consideration. .t is
evident "rom the records that respondent $as the one $ho notarized the
documents involvin# the said properties redeemed or repurchased b! the
complainant "rom her creditors $hich ended up in respondents name. The
.23 recommended he be suspended "or 4 months.
.SS56:
(hether or not respondent abused the trust o" his client in violation o" his
oath.
H6L7:
Considerin# the depravit! o" respondents o""ense, $e "ind the penalt!
recommended b! the .23 too li#ht. .t bears reiteratin# that a la$!er $ho
ta-es advanta#e o" his clients "inancial pli#ht to ac1uire the latters
properties "or his o$n bene"it is destructive o" the con"idence o" the public
in the "idelit!, honest!, and inte#rit! o" the le#al pro"ession. Thus, "or
violation o" Canon )4 and Canon )+ o" the Code o" 3ro"essional
&esponsibilit!, $hich constitutes #ross misconduct, and consistent $ith the
need to maintain the hi#h standards o" the 2ar and thus preserve the "aith o"
the public in the le#al pro"ession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalt!,
that o" e'pulsion "rom the esteemed brotherhood o" la$!ers.