4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

 
*
A.C. No. 6057. June 27, 2006.

PETER T. DONTON, complainant, vs. ATTY.

EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; A lawyer who assists a client in a

dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an
act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.—The
Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule
1.02 of the Code. A lawyer should not render any service or give
advice to any client which will involve defiance of the laws which
he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a
dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an
act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donton vs. Tansingco

Same; Same; The act of a lawyer in using his knowledge of the

law to achieve an unlawful end amounts to malpractice in his
office, for which he may be suspended.—Respondent had sworn to
uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code
when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to
evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent
used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such
an act amounts to malpractice in his office, for which he may be
suspended.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

     Alentajan Law Office for complainant.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty.

Emmanuel O. Tansingco (“respondent”) for 1serious
misconduct
2
and
3
deliberate violation of Canon 1, Rules
1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(“Code”).

The Facts

In his Complaint dated 20 May 2003, Peter T. Donton

(“complainant”) stated that he filed a criminal complaint
4
for estafa thru falsification of a public document against
Duane

_______________

1 Canon 1—A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
2 Rule 1.01.—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
3 Rule 1.02.—A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or lessening confidence in the legal system.
4 Docketed as I.S. No. 02-2520 before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Marikina City.

VOL. 493, JUNE 27, 2006 3

Donton vs. Tansingco

O. Stier (“Stier”), Emelyn A. Maggay (“Maggay”) and

respondent, as the notary public who notarized the
Occupancy Agreement.
The disbarment complaint arose5
when respondent filed
a counter-charge for perjury against complainant.
Respondent, in his affidavit-complaint, stated that:

5. The OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT dated September

11, 1995 was prepared and notarized by me
under the following circumstances:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

A. Mr. Duane O. Stier is the owner and long-time

resident of a real property located at No. 33 Don
Jose Street, Bgy. San Roque, Murphy, Cubao,
Quezon City.
B. Sometime in September 1995, Mr. Stier—a U.S.
citizen and thereby disqualified to own real
property in his name—agreed that the property
be transferred in the name of Mr. Donton, a
Filipino.
C. Mr. Stier, in the presence of Mr. Donton, requested
me to prepare several documents that would
guarantee recognition of him being the actual
owner of the property despite the transfer of title in
the name of Mr. Donton.
D. For this purpose, I prepared, among others, the
OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT, recognizing Mr.
Stier’s free and undisturbed use of the property for
his residence and business operations. The
OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT was tied up with6 a
loan which Mr. Stier had extended to Mr. Donton.

Complainant averred that respondent’s act of preparing the

Occupancy Agreement, despite knowledge that Stier, being
a foreign national, is disqualified to own real property in
his name, constitutes serious misconduct and is a
deliberate violation of the Code. Complainant prayed that
respondent be disbarred for advising Stier to do something
in violation of law and assisting Stier in carrying out a
dishonest scheme.

_______________

5 Docketed as I.S. No. 03-0474.

6 Rollo, pp. 15-16. Emphasis in the original.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donton vs. Tansingco

In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed

that complainant filed the disbarment case against him
upon the instigation 7 of complainant’s counsel, Atty.
Bonifacio A. Alentajan, because respondent refused to act
as complainant’s witness in the criminal case against Stier
and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he “prepared and

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

notarized” the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its

genuineness and due execution.
In a Resolution dated 1 October 2003, the Court referred
the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
for investigation, report and recommendation.

The IBP’s Report and Recommendation

In her Report dated 26 February 2004 (“Report”),

Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan (“Commissioner San
Juan”) of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found
respondent liable for taking part in a “scheme to
circumvent the constitutional prohibition against foreign
ownership of land in the Philippines.” Commissioner San
Juan recommended respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law for two years and the cancellation of his
commission as Notary Public.
In Resolution No. XVI-2004-222 dated 16 April 2004, the
IBP Board of Governors adopted, with modification, the
Report and recommended respondent’s suspension from the
practice of law for six months.
On 28 June 2004, the IBP Board of Governors forwarded
the Report 8 to the Court as provided under Section 12(b),
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

_______________

7 Respondent, in turn, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty.

Bonifacio A. Alentajan docketed as CBD Case No. 03-112.
8 Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 12. Review and Decision by the Board of Governors.—

xxx

VOL. 493, JUNE 27, 2006 5

Donton vs. Tansingco

On 28 July 2004, respondent filed a motion for

reconsideration before the IBP. Respondent stated that he
was already 76 years old and would already retire by 2005
after the termination of his pending cases. He also said
that his practice of law is his only means of support for his
family and his six minor children.
In a Resolution dated 7 October 2004, the IBP denied
the motion for reconsideration because the IBP had no

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

more jurisdiction on the case as the matter had already

been referred to the Court.

The Ruling of the Court

The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1

and Rule 1.02 of the Code.
A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to
any client which will involve9 defiance of the laws which he
is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client
in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law
commits an10 act which justifies disciplinary action against
the lawyer.
By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a 11
U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real12
property.
Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent
admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the
parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the
prohibition, quickly

_______________

(b) If the Board, by vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the
respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall
issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together
with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme
Court for final action.

9 E. PINEDA, LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS 35-36 (1994).

10 In re: Terrell, 2 Phil. 266 (1903).
11 Rollo, p. 15.
12 Id., at p. 99.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Donton vs. Tansingco

rectified his act and transferred the title in complainant’s

name. But respondent provided 13
“some safeguards” by
preparing several documents, including the Occupancy
Agreement, that would guarantee Stier’s recognition as the
actual owner of the property despite its transfer in
complainant’s name. In effect, respondent advised and
aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional
14
prohibition
against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said
documents.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus,

he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and
notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law
against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his
knowledge of

_______________

13 In respondent’s 30 December 2002 affidavit, he enumerated all the

documents he prepared for Stier:

A. A Deed of Sale over the property, which Mr. Stier could consolidate in favor
of any person of his choice at anytime;

[Note: The deed of Sale had an open date, and the name of the transferee was to be
indicated by Mr. Stier, at his discretion.]

B. Occupancy Agreement, recognizing Mr. Stier’s free and undisturbed use of

the property for his residence and business operations;

[Note: The Occupancy Agreement was tied up with a loan which Mr. Stier had extended to
Mr. Donton.]

C. Real Estate Mortgage over the property, which Mr. Stier could enforce
anytime; and
D. Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney to sell, mortgage or lease the
property, which Mr. Stier could exercise anytime.

14 Article XII, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be

transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

VOL. 493, JUNE 27, 2006 7

Donton vs. Tansingco

the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts15to

malpractice in his office, for
16
which he may be suspended.
In Balinon v. De Leon, respondent Atty. De Leon was
suspended from the practice of law for three years for
preparing an affidavit that virtually 17permitted him to
commit concubinage. In In re: Santiago, respondent Atty.
Santiago was suspended from the practice of law for one
year for preparing a contract which declared the spouses to
be single again after nine years of separation and allowed
them to contract separately subsequent marriages.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Atty. Emmanuel O.

Tansingco GUILTY of violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, we
SUSPEND respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco from
the practice of law for SIX MONTHS effective upon finality
of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal
record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Department of Justice, and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

       Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio-Morales, Tinga

and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco suspended from practice

of law for six (6) months for violation of Canon 1 and Rule
1.02 of Code of Professional Responsibility.

Notes.—Where a lawyer uses his opposition to the

motion for execution as a device to reopen the case or delay
the

_______________

15 In re: Santiago, 70 Phil. 66 (1940).

16 94 Phil. 277 (1954).
17 Supra.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dela Peña vs. Sia

execution of a decision which has long been final and

executory, there is a prima facie violation of Rule 12.04 of
Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
(Hoehne vs. Plata, 390 SCRA 555 [2002])
As a member of the bar, an attorney is charged with the
duty to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards his professional colleagues, and to avoid using
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
(Datuin, Jr. vs. Soriano, 391 SCRA 1 [2002])

——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
4/7/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 493

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171519a16db37402d0a003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8