A.C. No.

4904             August 12, 2004

ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA
vs.
ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR.
Ponente-Per Curiam

ISSUE

Whether or not Attorney Simeon M. Mesina, Jr. be disbarred for

breach of professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.

RULE

Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01. - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02. – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance
of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Canon 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar.

Rule 7.03. - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

Canon 15. A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients.

Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the
laws and the principles of fairness.
Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.

ANALYSIS/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
names. 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 he was also
given the promise that the property will be offered to him before it will be
sold to another, but respondent sold it to complainants without offering it
to him. Because of the foregoing circumstances, complainants filed an
administrative case against respondent.

CONCLUSION

The Court enumerated the gross acts of Attorney Melencio to wit:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

The Court disbarred Attorney Simeon Melencio, Jr. for breach of

professional ethics, gross professional misconduct, and culpable
malpractice.