Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CORONEL Vs CUNANAN
CORONEL Vs CUNANAN
CUNANAN
FACTS:
Complainant (Coronel) filed a disbarment case against Atty. Nelson A. Cunanan (Cunanan) for
advising and convincing her to engage him to transfer Title registered to the name of the former’s
grandparents to her name and her co-heirs by direct registration, which is a violation of the proper legal
procedure.
The respondent advised the complainant that the registration of title may be effected by two (2)
means namely: first by way of “ordinary procedure”; and second, by way of “direct registration”. The
respondent outlined both the ordinary procedure and direct registration. In direct registration, however,
as subject matter of this case, involves preparing documents upon advised of the Register of Deeds with
an estimated cost to be negotiated with the officials or employees of ROD and will involve an estimated
flat amount of P50,000.00 and transfer will take only one (1) month or less. It seems that the
complainant agreed on the direct registration, when the respondent billed him for 70,000.00, the
amount for direct transfer of title is P50,000.00; P5,000.00 for litigation expenses and P15,000.00 as
professional fees.
The complainant paid P70,000.00 to respondent. However, to no avail, the respondent did not
made contact with complainant. This prompt the former to demand from the latter the return of
P70,000.00 and the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-72074. When the respondent refused,
complainant institute this disbarment case.
In his Comment, the respondent admitted most of the complaint, however, denied that there
were deceit on his part insisting the he clearly outlined the available procedure for the transfer of title
and afforded complainant the opportunity to think about the options.
ISSUE: WON the actions of the respondent constituted malpractice, deceit or gross misconduct.
HELD:
Yes, the actions of the respondent constituted malpractice, deceit or gross misconduct.
A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
and legal processes. He shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct; or counsel
or abet activities aimed at a defiance of the law or at a lessening of confidence in the legal system. A
lawyer should advise his client to uphold the law, not to violate or disobey it. Conversely, he should not
recommend to his client any recourse or remedy that is contrary to law, public policy, public order, and
public morals.
In this case, although the respondent outlined the “ordinary procedure” of an extrajudicial
settlement of estate as means of transferring title, he also proposed the option of “direct registration”
despite fully aware that such option was actually a shortcut intended to circumvent the law, and thus
patently contrary to law. Hence, would bypass the immediate heirs of their grandparents (i.e. her
parents and her co-heirs parents). The proposal of direct registration was unquestionably unlawful,
immoral, and deceitful all at once. Likewise, he made the proposal despite its patent illegality in order to
take advantage of the complainant’s limited legal knowledge of the regular procedures for the transfer of
title under circumstances of intestacy.
Hence, by reason of the foregoing, the respondent is suspended from practice of law for one (1)
year.