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.
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.
