Custodio_-ramos-v.-ngaseo.docx

Ramos v. Ngaseo - Custodio A.C. No. 6210; December 9, 2004



DOCTRINE: Mere demand for the delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code.



This is a complaint for the suspension of respondent Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Article 1491 of the Civil Code (CC), by demanding from his client, complainant Federico N. Ramos, the delivery of 1,000 sqm of land, a litigated property, as payment for his appearance fees.



Respondent’s version: 

FACTS:

Complainant’s version: 



  

Sometime in 1998, Ramos went to Atty. Ngaseo’s office in Makati to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a piece of land in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Atty. Ngaseo agreed to handle the case for an acceptance fee of ₱ 20,000, appearance fee of ₱ 1,000 per hearing and the costs of meals, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Ramos alleges that he did not promise to pay Atty. Ngaseo 1,000 sqm of land as appearance fee. Sometime in 1999, Ramos went to Atty. Ngaseo’s office to inquire about the status of the case. Atty. Ngaseo informed him that the decision was adverse to them because a congressman exerted pressure upon the trial judge but reassured Ramos that they could still appeal and asked for additional ₱ 5,850 for research.

Subsequently, Ramos found out that Atty. Ngaseo filed the notice of appeal 3 days after the lapse of the reglementary period. Sometime in 2003, Ramos received a demand letter from Atty. Ngaseo asking for the delivery of the 1,000 sqm piece of land which he allegedly promised as payment for the latter’s appearance fee. According to Ramos, Atty. Ngaseo also threatened him that he will file a case in court.

   



According to Atty. Ngaseo, Ramos went to his office with his brother, Dionisio Ramos, to engage his professional service regarding a 2 hectare parcel of land which they lost 7 years ago earlier through an execution of sale in favor of one Alfredo Castro. He alleged that Ramos was deaf, could only speak conversational Tagalog, and was assisted by his brother. That they came all the way from Pangasinan because the 2 local lawyers there were demanding exorbitant fees. Atty. Ngaseo agreed to handle the case for an acceptance fee of ₱ 60,000 plus an appearance fee of ₱ 3,000 per hearing. 6 months later, Ramos, with one Jose Castillo, told Atty. Ngaseo that he was willing to pay an acceptance fee of ₱ 40,000 and the remaining ₱ 20,000 is to be paid after their treasure hunt operations. Further, Ramos offered 1,000 sqm of the subject land if they win or from another if they lose in lieu of the ₱ 3,000 appearance fee, to which Atty. Ngaseo accepted.

  

Atty. Ngaseo claims that he had filed a timely notice of appeal and moved to be discharged as counsel because he had colon cancer. Ramos begged Atty. Ngaseo to continue handling the case with an offer to double the 1,000 sqm piece of land earlier promised. Meanwhile, the CA rendered a decision favorable to them, ordering the return of the disputed land to Ramos.

Came 2003... 

  



Ramos filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) charging Atty. Ngaseo of Violation of the CPR for demanding the delivery of 1,000 sqm parcel of land which was the subject of the litigation. IBP found Atty. Ngaseo guilty of grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in volation of the CPR and suspended him from practice of law. Atty. Ngaseo filed a petition for review assailing the IBP resolution having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate Art. 1491 of the CC which prohibits lawyers from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession. He reasoned that when he demanded the delivery of the 1,000 sqm of land which was promised to him in lieu of the appearance fees, the case has already been terminated.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo violated paragraph 5 of Art. 1491?

HELD: No.  



 







The prohibition includes not only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. Rationale for this is that public policy disallows the transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved: the relation of trust and confidence, and the peculiar control exercised by these persons. It is founded on public policy because, an attorney, by virtue of his office, may easily take advantage of the credibility and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client. Hence, where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of par. 5 of Art. 1491 attaches. In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of the property in litigation since Atty. Ngaseo only made a written demand for its delivery which Ramos refused to comply. Mere demand for the delivery of the litigated property does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Art. 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such demand for delivery is unethical, Atty. Ngaseo’s act does not fall within the purview of Art. 1491 because the letter of demand was made long after the judgment in the case became final and executory. He was merely reprimanded.