1) A.C. No.

6210 December 9, 2004 Respondent argues that he did not violate Article
Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio A.
Ngaseo
Facts:
Federico N. Ramos filed a complaint before the IBP
charging his former counsel, respondent Atty.
Ngaseo, of violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding the delivery of 1,000
sq. m. parcel of land which was the subject of
litigation.
Federico Ramos alleged that he went to respondent
Atty. Patricio Ngaseos to engage his services as
counsel in a case involving a piece of land.
Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fee of
P1,000.00 per hearing and the cost of meals,
transportation and other incidental expenses.
Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay
the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance
fees.
Complainant went to the respondent’s office to
inquire about the status of the case. Respondent
informed him that the decision was adverse to them
however respondent assured him that they could still
appeal the adverse judgment and asked for the
additional amount of P3,850.00 and another
P2,000.00 as allowance for research made.
Respondent claims that after the trial court
dismissed Civil Case No. SCC 2128, he filed a timely
notice of appeal and thereafter moved to be
discharged as counsel because he had colon
cancer. Complainant, now assisted by one Johnny
Ramos, implored respondent to continue handling
the case, with an offer to double the 1,000 sq. m.
piece of land earlier promised and the remaining
balance of P20,000.00 acceptance fee. Johnny
Ramos made a written commitment and gave
respondents secretary P2,000.00 of the P3,850.00
expenses for the preparation of the appellants brief.
1491 of the Civil Code because when he demanded
the delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. of land which was
offered and promised to him in lieu of the
appearance fees, the case has been terminated,
when the appellate court ordered the return of the 2-
hectare parcel of land to the family of the
complainant.
Issue:
WON the demands made by Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo
constitute a violation of Art. 1491 of the New Civil
Code.
Held:
In all cases where Article 1491 was violated, the
illegal transaction was consummated with the actual
transfer of the litigated property either by purchase
or assignment in favor of the prohibited individual.
In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition
of the property in litigation since the respondent only
made a written demand for its delivery which the
complainant refused to comply. Mere demand for
delivery of the litigated property does not cause the
transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited
transaction within the contemplation of Article 1491.
Even assuming arguendo that such demand for
delivery is unethical; respondents act does not fall
within the purview of Article 1491. The letter of
demand was made long after the judgment in Civil
Case became final and executory.

The Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision

ordering the return of the disputed 2-hectare land to
the complainant and his siblings. The said decision
became final and executory on January 18, 2002.
Since then complainant allegedly failed to contact
respondent, which compelled him to send a demand
letter on January 29, 2003.