B Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or carelessly

B santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 23 pages.

B. Santiago was ignorant of the applicable provision of the law or carelessly negligent in giving legal advice. C. The admission to the practice of law dependent on a lawyer’s remaining as a fit-and- safe person to society. Once he becomes unsafe or unfit to be entrusted with obligations, his professional privilege should be terminated.
Image of page 8
CASE DIGEST: AC No. 4904, August 12, 2004 ANA A. CHUA and MARCELINA HSIA, Complainants , v. ATTY. SIMEON M. MESINA, JR., Respondent . FACTS: Ana Chua and Marcelina Hsia were business partners. Atty. Simeon Mesina Jr. is the legal counsel of the Chua spouses. The Chua spouses are also lessees of a building in Burgos St., Cabanatuan and another property in Melencio St., Cabanatuan. The owner of these properties is the mother of Atty. Simeon Mesina, Jr., Mrs. Mesina. Mrs. Mesina mortgaged these properties in favor of Planters Development Bank to secure a loan. From which she failed to pay the bank. Her son convinced the Chua spouses to help her mother, and in exchange, the Melencio property would be sold to them at P850/Sqm. The spouses and their business partner accommodated the request and paid the bank in the amount of Php983, 125.40. Mrs. Mesina executed a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated Jan 19, 1985, in favor of complainants. The complainants were made to pay the capital gains tax so they consulted Atty. Mesina about it. Capital Gains Tax is a tax on the profit when you sell (or 'dispose of') something (an 'asset') that's increased in value. It's the gain you make that's taxed, not the amount of money you receive. He suggested that they execute another Deed of Absolute Sale, antedated to 1979, before the effectively of the law mandating the payment of capital gains tax. Another Deed was executed by Mrs. Mesina, in favor of complainants, in the purchase price of Php85, 400, antedated to Feb 9, 1979. After liquidating the transactions that occurred, Mrs. Mesina was found to have an existing debt balance to the spouses in the amount of Php400, 000. Atty Mesina acknowledge the obligation to be his and undertook to settle it within two years. On Jan 21, 1986, a title over the Melencio property was issued to the complainants. A certain Juanito Tecson filed an Affidavit in Feb 20, 1986, charging Mrs. Mesina, the complainants, for Falsification of Public Document and violation of the Internal Revenue Code. Tecson alleged he was also a lessee of the Melencio propertyand was supposed to also purchase it along with the complainants Tecson want on to relate that the Feb 9, 1979 Deed did not reflect the tue value of the Melencio property and was antedated “to eveade payment of capital gains tax” Atty. Mesina proposed that the complainants simulate a deed of sale of the Melencio property wherein complainants would resell it to Mrs. Mesina, dated April 1, 1986. A new title was accordingly issued on Aprl 4, 1986 in the amount of Php85, 400.00 in favor of “Felecisima Melencio.” The owner’s copy was entrusted to complainants. Tecson filed an Affidavit of Desistance alleging that his filing of the criminal complaint “arose out of mere misunderstanding and difference” and that he had no sufficient evidence.
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture