Chua vs. Mesina, A.C. No.

4904, August 12, 2004

Facts:
Complainants Ana Alvaran Chua and Marcelina Hsia administratively charged respondent Atty. Simeon M. Mesina,
Jr., for breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable malpractice.

Complainants were lessees of the property of respondent's mother. Respondent's mother defaulted in paying a loan
that she obtained in a bank, thus respondent convinced complainants to help her mother if paying the said obligation,
to which the complainants acceded. It was agreed among that that in consideration for the act of complainants, the
property which they are leasing will be transferred to their name. The complainants complied with the terms of the
agreement. A deed of sale concerning such property was executed.

However, to evade liability for paying capital gains tax, respondent instructed complainants to execute another deed
of sale which will be antedated 1979, wherein the capital gains tax was not yet in effective.
Subsequently, after the execution of the deed of sale, respondents instructed his clients [complainants] to execute a
simulated deed of sale which will reflect that the property was re-conveyed to his mother.

The cunning acts of respondent did not end there. Respondent went to the house of complainants and got the owners
certificate of title of the said property which is still under the name of her mother. he promised to the complainants
that he will process the transfer of the property to their name. Years passed, but respondent never returned the said
title to the complainants.

Meanwhile, another lessee file a criminal case against the complainants and respondents for falsification. He claims
that was also given the promise that the property will be offered to him before it will be sold to another, but
respondents sold it to complainants without offering to him. Because of the foregoing circumstances, complainants
filed an administrative case against respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held:
Yes, said the Court- "This Court finds that indeed, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

First, by advising complainants to execute another Deed of Absolute Sale antedated to 1979 to evade payment of
capital gains taxes, he violated his duty to promote respect for law and legal processes, and not to abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law; That respondent intended to, as he did defraud not a private party but the government
is aggravating.

Second, when respondent convinced complainants to execute another document, a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale
wherein they made it appear that complainants reconveyed the Melencio property to his mother, he committed
dishonesty.

Third, when on May 2, 1990 respondent inveigled his own clients, the Chua spouses, into turning over to him the
owner’s copy of his mother’s title upon the misrepresentation that he would, in four months, have a deed of sale
executed by his mother in favor of complainants, he likewise committed dishonesty.

That the signature of “Felicisima M. Melencio” in the 1985 document and that in the 1979 document are markedly
different is in fact is a badge of falsification of either the 1979 or the 1985 document or even both.

A propos is this Court’s following pronouncement in Nakpil v. Valdez

As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with
utmost honesty and good faith. The measure of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings
with his client is a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade at “arms
length.” Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the
law. Hence, courts carefully watch these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his
client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. Thus, no presumption of innocence or improbability of
wrongdoing is considered in an attorney’s favor.

Respondent having welched on his promise to cause the reconveyance of the Melencio property to complainants,
consideration of whether he should be ordered to honor such promise should be taken up in the civil case filed for
the purpose, the issue there being one of ownership while that in the case at bar is moral fitness.

Respondent ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR. is, for gross misconduct, hereby DISBARRED.