CASE DIGEST

Stemmerik v. Mas
Legal Profession

Court Supreme Court

Date June 16, 2009

Complainant Keld Stemmerik, represented by Attys. Herminio A. Liwanag and Winston P.L. Esguerra

Respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas

Ponente Per Curiam

Case Summary A lawyer deceives a foreign national into giving money for purchase of land in the PH

Relevant topic Rule 1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral, Deceitful Conduct

FACTS:
 Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark
- In one of his visits to the PH, he was introduced to Atty. Mas
 Stemmerik expressed his interest in acquiring real property in the PH
- Stemmerik consulted Mas who told him he could legally acquire and own real property in the PH
- Mas even suggested a property in Zambales which he assured was alienable
- Stemmerik agreed to purchase the property through Mas as his representative or attorney-in-fact
- Mas prepared the necessary documents and demanded and received a P400k fee
- Stemmerik returned to Denmark, entrusting the processing of the paperwork to Mas
 Mas prepared the following documents:
- A contract to sell between Stemmerik, represented by Mas, and de Mesa, the purported owner of the
property
- A notarized deed of sale wherein de Mesa sold and conveyed the property to a certain Gonzales for
P3.8M
- A notarized agreement between Stemmerik and Gonzales stating that the former provided the funds for
the purchase
 Stemmerik gave Mas the full amount of the purchase price for which Mas issued an acknowledgement receipt
 Subsequently, Stemmerik tried to inquire with Mas about when the property could be registered in his name
- Mas became scarce and refused to answer calls and emails
 January, 2005: Stemmerik visited the PH
- He engaged the services of Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez Law Office to
ascertain the status of the property he bought
- He was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under PH law
- Verification with CENRO (Community Environment & Natural Resources Office) also revealed that the
said property was inalienable under RA 141 as it was situated within the former US Military Reservation
 Stemmerik tried to locate Mas
- The Olongapo Chapter of the IBP disclosed Mas was in arrears in his annual dues and that he had
abandoned his law office in Olongapo City
 Stemmerik filed a complaint for disbarment against Mas
- The complaint was filed with the CBD (Commission on Bar Discipline) of the IBP
- He sought Mas’ expulsion from the legal profession
 Notice of the disbarment proceedings was served at Mas’ last known address
- Mas did not file any answer or position paper and failed to appear at the scheduled mandatory
conferences
 The CBD ruled that Mas used his position as a lawyer to mislead Stemmerik
- Mas was found to be “nothing more than an embezzler” who used his professional status as a tool for
deceiving Stemmerik
- He was dishonest and deceitful and for abusing the trust and confidence reposed in him by Stemmerik,
the CBD recommended his disbarment
 The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the CBD recommendation
- Also required Mas to return the P4.2M

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Stemmerik v. Mas
Legal Profession

WON Mas was properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings against him YES

RATIO:
 Mas did not file any answer or position paper and failed to appear during the scheduled mandatory
conferences
- He abandoned his last known address after embezzling Stemmerik
- He should not benefit from his disappearing act
- He cannot defeat the Court’s jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability
by merely concealing his whereabouts
 Mas himself rendered service of notice on him impossible
- The notice requirement cannot apply to him and he is considered to have waived it
- The law obliges no one to perform an impossibility (Nemo tenetur ad impossible)
 Lawyers must update the IBP (either the National Office or their respective chapters) regarding any change in
office/residential address or other contact details
- Service of notice at the address appearing in the records of the IBP shall constitute sufficient notice to a
lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him

ISSUES HELD

WON Mas violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and should be YES
disbarred

RATIO:
 Lawyers have the duty to promote respect for the law and uphold the integrity of the bar
- They must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or
deception
- Lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, obey the laws, and to do no falsehood, and such oath is
a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times
- Lawyers are servants of the law, and the law is their master
- They should not only obey the law, they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving
as exemplars worthy of emulation.
 Mas is guilty of culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
 He violated Canon 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES
- Mas violated the Constitution when he gave advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional
policy (that aliens may not acquire private or agricultural lands, including residential lands), showing
disrespect for the Constitution, and gross ignorance of the basic law
- Mas also violated the Anti-Dummy Law when he prepared fictitious documents making it appear that de
Mesa undertook to sell the property, and selling it to Gonzales on behalf of Stemmerik
- Mas deliberately foisted a falsehood on Stemmerik, with utter disregard to the trust and confidence
reposed in him, and misled him to pay P400k for illegal and unprofessional services
- Mas also misappropriated P3.8M, committing a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature
 Due to his acts, Mas also violated the following provisions of the CPR:
- Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02, Canon 7, Canon 15, Canon 16, Canon 17
 Mas poses a clear and present danger to the rule of law and to the legal system.
- He tarnished the image of the bar and degraded the integrity and dignity of the legal profession
- He betrays everything that the legal profession stands for

RULING:
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is directed to
immediately strike out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys.

Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total amount of ₱4.2 million with
interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this resolution until full payment. Respondent is
further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of payment of the amount within ten days from payment.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ORDERED to locate Atty. Mas and file the appropriate criminal charges
against him. The NBI is further DIRECTED to regularly report the progress of its action in this case to this Court
through the Bar Confidant.

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Stemmerik v. Mas
Legal Profession

Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant who shall forthwith record it in the personal file of
respondent, the Court Administrator who shall inform all courts of the Philippines, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
which shall disseminate copies to all its chapters and members and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of
the Republic of the Philippines.

Page 3 of 3