KELD STEMMERIK, represented by ATTYS. HERMINIO A. LIWANAG and WINSTON P.L.

ESGUERRA, Complainant,
vs.
ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS, Respondent.

Facts:

Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips to the Philippines, he was
introduced to respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas.

In one visit to the Philippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of the country and expressed his
interest in acquiring real property in the Philippines. He consulted respondent who advised him that
he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. Respondent even suggested an
86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic, Zambales with the assurance that the
property was alienable.

Complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as his representative or attorney-
in-fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for the preparation of the necessary
documents. respondent demanded and received a ₱400,000 fee.

Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark,
entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent.

Respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented by

 Complainant then gave respondent the full amount of the purchase price (₱3.8 million) for which
respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt.4After the various contracts and agreements were
executed, complainant tried to get in touch with respondent to inquire about when the property could
be registered in his name. However, respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer
complainant’s calls and e-mail messages.

When complainant visited the Philippines again in January 2005, he engaged the services of the
Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez Law Office to ascertain the status of
the property he supposedly bought. He was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land under
Philippine laws. Moreover, verification at the Community Environment & Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Olongapo City revealed that
the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US Military Reservation.5 The
CENRO also stated that the property was not subject to disposition or acquisition under Republic Act
No. 141.6

Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.9 He deplored respondent’s acts of serious misconduct. In particular, he
sought the expulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely misrepresenting that a
foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously absconding with
complainant’s ₱3.8 million.10

Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his last known
address. Neither did he appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. In this connection, the CBD
found that respondent abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City after his transaction with
complainant and that he did not see it fit to contest the charges against him.11

The CBD ruled that respondent used his position as a lawyer to mislead complainant on the matter
of land ownership by a foreigner.12 He even went through the motion of preparing falsified and
fictitious contracts, deeds and agreements. And for all these shameless acts, he collected ₱400,000
from complainant. Worse, he pocketed the ₱3.8 million and absconded with it.13

The CBD found respondent to be "nothing more than an embezzler" who misused his professional
status as an attorney as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with complainant’s
money.14 Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and confidence reposed by
complainant in him. The CBD recommended the disbarment of respondent.15

The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings and recommendation of the CBD with the
modification that respondent was further required to return the amount of ₱4.2 million to
respondent.16
We agree with the IBP.

ISSUE:

was respondent properly given notice of the disbarment proceedings against him? Yes.

Held:

The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he appear during the scheduled
mandatory conference. Respondent in fact abandoned his last known address, his law office in
Olongapo City, after he committed the embezzlement.

Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can neither defeat this
Court’s jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability by the mere
ruse of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders and processes
on respondent’s office was sufficient notice to him.

Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice requirement
cannot apply to him and he is thus considered to have waived it. The law does not require that the
impossible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile.17 The law obliges no one to perform an
impossibility. Laws and rules must be interpreted in a way that they are in accordance with logic,
common sense, reason and practicality.18

In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National
Office or their respective chapters19 of any change in office or residential address and other contact
details.20 In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential
address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a
lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him.

Respondent’s Administrative Infractions

Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the law and
uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they must ensure that the
law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or deception.

Respondent has been weighed by the exacting standards of the legal profession and has been
found wanting. Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of
culpable violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal
profession.

All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood. That
oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld
and kept inviolable at all times.22

Lawyers are servants of the law23 and the law is their master. They should not simply obey the laws,
they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as exemplars worthy of
emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional policy, showed
disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he prepared spurious
documents that he knew were void and illegal.

By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that de Mesa
thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of complainant, he
falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.26

Respondent’s misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally
and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was
alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the
trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled
him into parting with ₱400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by
pocketing and misappropriating the ₱3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase of the
property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature. 1avvphi1
Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act after unethical
act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards.

For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyer’s oath and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

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.

CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS

CANON 16 – A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS
CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.

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. (emphasis supplied)

A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to
further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present danger to the rule
of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar and degrade the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything that the legal profession
stands for.

It is respondent and his kind that give lawyering a bad name and make laymen support Dick the
Butcher’s call, "Kill all lawyers!"27 A disgrace to their professional brethren, they must be purged from
the bar.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is

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.