Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 - Ylaya V Gacott

    Uploaded by

    Isabella Siggaoat
    16 views1 page
    Fe Ylaya filed a complaint against attorney Glen Gacott for deceiving her and her husband into selling their property to his relatives at a much lower price than its assessed value. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines found Gacott guilty of violating legal ethics and recommended a six-month suspension. On appeal, the IBP governors increased the suspension to two years. Gacott argued he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine Ylaya during the IBP proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Gacott was not denied due process as he had the opportunity to be heard, and his failure to cross-examine was not grounds to claim a lack of

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    7_Ylaya v Gacott

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fe Ylaya filed a complaint against attorney Glen Gacott for deceiving her and her husband into selling their property to his relatives at a much lower price than its assessed value. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines found Gacott guilty of violating legal ethics and recommended a six-month suspension. On appeal, the IBP governors increased the suspension to two years. Gacott argued he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine Ylaya during the IBP proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Gacott was not denied due process as he had the opportunity to be heard, and his failure to cross-examine was not grounds to claim a lack of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views1 page

    7 - Ylaya V Gacott

    Uploaded by

    Isabella Siggaoat
    Fe Ylaya filed a complaint against attorney Glen Gacott for deceiving her and her husband into selling their property to his relatives at a much lower price than its assessed value. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines found Gacott guilty of violating legal ethics and recommended a six-month suspension. On appeal, the IBP governors increased the suspension to two years. Gacott argued he was denied due process because he could not cross-examine Ylaya during the IBP proceedings. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Gacott was not denied due process as he had the opportunity to be heard, and his failure to cross-examine was not grounds to claim a lack of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Case Citation: Ylaya v Gacott 689 SCRA 452 (Admin Case 6375)

    Date: January 13, 2013

    Petitioners: Fe A. Ylaya, Complainant

    Respondents: Atty. Glen Carlos Gacott

    Syllabus Topic: Due Process

    Thesis Statement: For Court’s reconsideration of disbarment complaint against Gacott on the grounds of
    violation of due process.

    Issue: W/N IBP Violated the respondent’s right to due process.

    The Facts of the Case: *Spouses Ylaya’s property was subject for expropriation by the City
    Government of Puerto Prinsesa— RTC decided for 6,000,000 just
    compensation.
    *Gacott as their counsel, allegedly deceived the Ylaya spouses to sign a
    preparatory deed of sale without the name of buyer and amount (Ylaya spouses
    thought it was for the City Government)
    *Gacott then converted the preparatory Deed of Sale to absolute deed of sale
    sold to Gacott’s Uncle & Aunt amounting to 200,000 — Gacott notarized the
    pertinent papers regarding the sale.
    *Ylaya spouses filed a complaint for disbarment to the IBP

    IBP Investigation Guilty of violation of Canon 1 & 16. Recommended for 6 months suspension.
    Comission:

    IBP Governors: 2 years suspension

    Petitioner: Agreed to Compromise Agreement to receive 5,000,000 or half of the just


    compensation from City Government. Withdrew the case.

    Respondent’s He was denied due process by the IBP when he was not given a chance to cross-
    Contention: examine the Petitioner’s during IBP Proceedings.

    SC Ruling: *Withdrawal of the civil complaint does not terminate the proceedings for
    disbarment.
    *Violation of Canon Law: 15, 16, & 18
    *Denial of due process means the total lack of opportunity to be heard. Gacott
    enjoyed the chance to be heard in IBP proceedings. Failure to cross-examine the
    petitioner was not a ground to argue that he was denied due process.

    Other/Notes: Ponente: Justice Brion.


    Decision: Guilty. Suspension of practice for 1 year.

    You might also like