1) Complainant Keld Stemmerik, a foreigner, hired respondent attorney Leonuel Mas to help him acquire property in the Philippines. Mas falsely told Stemmerik that foreigners could own property and prepared fake documents.
2) Stemmerik paid Mas PHP 400,000 in fees and PHP 3.8 million for the property. However, foreigners cannot actually own land in the Philippines.
3) The Court ruled that Mas be disbarred for violating legal ethics through his dishonest conduct that included falsifying documents and misappropriating client funds.
1) Complainant Keld Stemmerik, a foreigner, hired respondent attorney Leonuel Mas to help him acquire property in the Philippines. Mas falsely told Stemmerik that foreigners could own property and prepared fake documents.
2) Stemmerik paid Mas PHP 400,000 in fees and PHP 3.8 million for the property. However, foreigners cannot actually own land in the Philippines.
3) The Court ruled that Mas be disbarred for violating legal ethics through his dishonest conduct that included falsifying documents and misappropriating client funds.
1) Complainant Keld Stemmerik, a foreigner, hired respondent attorney Leonuel Mas to help him acquire property in the Philippines. Mas falsely told Stemmerik that foreigners could own property and prepared fake documents.
2) Stemmerik paid Mas PHP 400,000 in fees and PHP 3.8 million for the property. However, foreigners cannot actually own land in the Philippines.
3) The Court ruled that Mas be disbarred for violating legal ethics through his dishonest conduct that included falsifying documents and misappropriating client funds.
1) Complainant Keld Stemmerik, a foreigner, hired respondent attorney Leonuel Mas to help him acquire property in the Philippines. Mas falsely told Stemmerik that foreigners could own property and prepared fake documents.
2) Stemmerik paid Mas PHP 400,000 in fees and PHP 3.8 million for the property. However, foreigners cannot actually own land in the Philippines.
3) The Court ruled that Mas be disbarred for violating legal ethics through his dishonest conduct that included falsifying documents and misappropriating client funds.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
KELD STEMMERIK vs. ATTY. LEONUEL N.
MAS A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009
FACTS: Complainant Keld Stemmerik a foreigner visited the Philippines. Amazed by its beauty, consulted to respondent Atty. Mas to help him acquire real property in Subic, Zambales and the latter, upon the consultation of complainant, purported that a foreigner may acquire a property in The Philippines. While Stemmerik is in his country, Denmark, he let Atty. Mas to do the acquisition of land by giving him Php 400,000 as his document processing fees and Php 3,800,000 for the purchase price of the land. Atty. Mas prepared falsified and fictitious contracts, deeds and agreements. Upon consultation to other lawyers, the complainant discovered that a foreigner cannot acquire real estate in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Mas be disbarred.
Ruling: The Court ruled that Atty. Mas be disbarred as he violated the lawyer’s oath and the following Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and 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 dealings and transactions with his client. 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
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.
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.
