Marqueda, Marie

Leg.Coun Disbarment Digest

STEMMERIK V. MAS
AC No. 8010

FACTS:
Stemmerik, a Danish citizen, wanted to buy Philippine property due to its beauty. He
consulted Atty Mas about his intention, to which the latter advised him that he could legally
buy such properties. Atty Mas even suggested a big piece of property that he can buy,
assuring that it is alienable. Because of this, Stemmerik entrusted all of the necessary
requirements and made Atty Mas his attorney in fact as he went back to Denmark. After
some time, Atty Mas informed Stemmerik that he found the owner of the big piece of
property and stated the price of the property is P3.8M. Stemmerik agreed, giving Atty Mas
the money, and the latter supposedly drawing up the necessary paperwork.
When Stemmerik asked when he could have the property registered in his name,
Atty Mas cant be found. He returned to the Philippines, employed another lawyer, and to
his horror, was informed that aliens couldnt own Philippine Lands and that the property
was also inalienable. Stemmerik the filed a DISBARMENT case against Atty MAS in the
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP. The CBD ruled that Atty Mas abused the
trust and confidence of Stemmerik and recommended that he be disbarred. The IBP Board
of Governors adopted such recommendations.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty Mas can be disbarred.
HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court held that Atty. Mas is disbarred because he disobeyed the
Laws and the Constitutional Prohibition on Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution
prohibits foreigners from buying Philippine Lands. Respondent, in giving advice that
directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed disrespect for the
Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious documents
that he knew were void and illegal. Also because of deceitful conduct by advising
complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines
and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent deliberately
deceived his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him
by complainant. Lastly, because of his illegal Conduct by pocketing and misappropriating
the P3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent
committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.