Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    Respondent, a lawyer, purchased land from complainant's late husband and issued 8 post-dated checks as payment, which were later dishonored. Respondent claimed the non-payment was justified due to issues obtaining the necessary right-of-way for the land's development. However, respondent failed to provide any evidence to support his claims or legal defense for non-payment. The court found respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands for payment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    98 views2 pages
    Respondent, a lawyer, purchased land from complainant's late husband and issued 8 post-dated checks as payment, which were later dishonored. Respondent claimed the non-payment was justified due to issues obtaining the necessary right-of-way for the land's development. However, respondent failed to provide any evidence to support his claims or legal defense for non-payment. The court found respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands for payment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 1 year.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Respondent, a lawyer, purchased land from complainant's late husband and issued 8 post-dated checks as payment, which were later dishonored. Respondent claimed the non-payment was justified due to issues obtaining the necessary right-of-way for the land's development. However, respondent failed to provide any evidence to support his claims or legal defense for non-payment. The court found respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands for payment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views2 pages

    Vda. de Espino v. Presquito

    Uploaded by

    angelo prieto
    Respondent, a lawyer, purchased land from complainant's late husband and issued 8 post-dated checks as payment, which were later dishonored. Respondent claimed the non-payment was justified due to issues obtaining the necessary right-of-way for the land's development. However, respondent failed to provide any evidence to support his claims or legal defense for non-payment. The court found respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in issuing worthless checks and ignoring demands for payment. Respondent was suspended from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VDA. DE ESPINO V. PRESQUITO Rule 16.

    04 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer shall not borrow


    money from his clients unless the client’s interests are fully protected
    Facts: by the nature of the case or by independent advice
    Respondent was introduced to complainant’s late husband, Mr.
    Virgilio M. Espino. Mr. Espino, a resident of Davao City, had sought Held:
    the assistance of respondent, a resident of Cagayan de Oro,
    regarding the sale of his piece of land with an area of 11,057.59 It was incumbent upon respondent to prove a legal excuse or
    sq.m. situated in Misamis Oriental. The discussion between Mr. defense for nonpayment of the eight checks. Respondent utterly
    Espino and the respondent resulted in the sale of the property to failed in this regard.
    respondent. Under the terms of the agreement between Mr. Espino
    and respondent, the purchase price of the land was ₱1,437,410.00, The records show that respondent was unable to present evidence.
    payable on a staggered basis and by installments. Pursuant to the Respondent’s own statements without corroborating evidence are
    terms of payment in the agreement, respondent issued eight post- just self-serving allegations.
    dated checks, totaling ₱736,060.00. Respondent then entered into a
    joint venture or partnership agreement with Mrs. Guadalupe Ares for Respondent claims that his failure to present evidence was due to
    the subdivision of the land into home-size lots and its development, his financial difficulties, i.e., he could not afford to spend for travel
    with a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own use. expenses of his witnesses. We are not persuaded. First, it boggles
    The land was eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. the mind how financial constraints could have prevented
    Ares, and subdivided into 35 to 36 lots. respondent from presenting the originals of the documents
    attached to his comment, proving, among others, the alleged
    The 8 checks of the respondent were dishonored. Respondent advances and costs on Mr. Espino’s behalf. The originals of
    denied the allegations saying that: these documents are presumably in his possession. Second,
    with respect to the absence of testimony, respondent could
    - The nonpayment was justified by the unresolved issue with have submitted the affidavits of his witnesses - the taking of
    regard to the right of way of the land which he could have done himself in Cagayan de Oro to keep
    - Mr. Espino had made assurances that the land had a right- down the cost.
    of-way required for its development, but respondent later
    found out that such road-right-of-way required the consent of All these circumstances lead us to the ineluctable conclusion that
    four other land owners, and the expense would be respondent could not present evidence because there really
    considerably more than he was made to believe was none to justify his nonpayment.
    - He and Mr. Espino had agreed that the latter would not
    encash the checks or demand the equivalent of the same Even if we were to excuse respondent’s procedural lapse and
    until the right-of-way problem of the land had been resolved. consider his written pleadings as testimony, we agree with
    - he was entitled to set-off against the amount he owes Mr. Commissioner Dulay that respondent’s problems with respect to the
    Espino or his heirs from the purchase of the land, the right-of-way or his partnership with Mrs. Ares do not excuse his
    advances he made to Mr. Espino, and the cost he incurred nonpayment. This is because he took responsibility with regard to
    when he defended Mr. Espino’s son in a criminal case. such negotiations relating to the right of way.

    Applicable law: Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored
    checks, respondent’s indifference to complainant’s entreaties for
    payment was conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an
    officer of the court. Respondent violated the Code of Professional
    Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct
    towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing the eight
    (8) checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated
    demands for payment until complainant was forced to file this
    complaint, and finally by deliberately delaying the disposition of this
    case with dilatory tactics. Considering that the property of
    complainant and her late husband is already in respondent and Mrs.
    Ares’ name, the injustice of respondent’s different maneuvers to
    evade payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since 1996 -
    becomes more manifest.

    It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless


    checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public
    interest and public order.

    Suspended for 1 year

    You might also like