Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 213 views

    Uy Vs Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis De Castro
    This document summarizes a legal case between William S. Uy and Attorney Fermin L. Gonzales. It details that Gonzales offered to help redeem a property from Uy, but later withdrew support for filing a petition related to the property's lost title when Uy did not provide funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Gonzales for six months for violating rules related to professional responsibility. However, the court ultimately found that Gonzales and Uy had a personal relationship, not an attorney-client one, so Gonzales was not found to have violated his duty to preserve client secrets or merits suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Uy Vs Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis De Castro
    213 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a legal case between William S. Uy and Attorney Fermin L. Gonzales. It details that Gonzales offered to help redeem a property from Uy, but later withdrew support for filing a petition related to the property's lost title when Uy did not provide funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Gonzales for six months for violating rules related to professional responsibility. However, the court ultimately found that Gonzales and Uy had a personal relationship, not an attorney-client one, so Gonzales was not found to have violated his duty to preserve client secrets or merits suspension from practicing law.

    Original Description:

    Uy vs Gonzales Digest

    Original Title

    Uy vs Gonzales Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a legal case between William S. Uy and Attorney Fermin L. Gonzales. It details that Gonzales offered to help redeem a property from Uy, but later withdrew support for filing a petition related to the property's lost title when Uy did not provide funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Gonzales for six months for violating rules related to professional responsibility. However, the court ultimately found that Gonzales and Uy had a personal relationship, not an attorney-client one, so Gonzales was not found to have violated his duty to preserve client secrets or merits suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    213 views2 pages

    Uy Vs Gonzales Digest

    Uploaded by

    Francis De Castro
    This document summarizes a legal case between William S. Uy and Attorney Fermin L. Gonzales. It details that Gonzales offered to help redeem a property from Uy, but later withdrew support for filing a petition related to the property's lost title when Uy did not provide funds. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines suspended Gonzales for six months for violating rules related to professional responsibility. However, the court ultimately found that Gonzales and Uy had a personal relationship, not an attorney-client one, so Gonzales was not found to have violated his duty to preserve client secrets or merits suspension from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Ariel Francis R.

    De Castro
    1B-JD4
    Legal Research and Thesis Writing

    WILLIAM S. UY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FERMIN L.


    GONZALES, RESPONDENT.
    Issue: W/N respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and grossly disregarded
    his duty to preserve the secrets of his client.

    Facts:
    On December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant a 4.9
    hectare-property situated in Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan covered
    by TCT No. T-33122 On the same date, he paid complainant P340,000.00 and
    demanded the delivery of TCT No. T-33122 as well as the execution of the
    Deed of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant additional time to
    locate said title or until after Christmas to deliver the same and execute the
    Deed of Redemption.

    As the respondent wanting to protect his interest over the property


    coupled with his desire to get hold of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible
    time, he offered his assistance pro bono to prepare a petition for lost title
    provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for
    transportation and others, estimated at P20,000.00, will be shouldered by
    complainant. To these, complainant agreed.

    On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition


    for the lost title ready for signing and notarization. On April 14, 1999, he
    went to complainants office informing him that the petition is ready for filing
    and needs funds for expenses. Complainant who was with a client asked him
    to wait at the anteroom where he waited for almost two hours until he found
    out that complainant had already left without leaving any instructions nor
    funds for the filing of the petition. Complainants conduct infuriated him
    which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he
    is withdrawing the petition he prepared and that complainant should get
    another lawyer to file the petition.
    On 29 April 2003, the Commission received a letter dated 24 April 2003
    from Atty. Augusto M. Macam, who claims to represent complainant, William
    S. Uy, alleging that complainant is no longer interested in pursuing this case

    On June 21, 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the
    Philippines issued Resolution No. XV-2003-365, thus:
    RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED,
    the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
    above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex
    A; and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on
    record and applicable laws and rules, and considering that respondent
    violated Rule 21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility,
    Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
    six (6) months.

    Held:
    W/N respondent violated his oath as a lawyer and grossly disregarded his
    duty to preserve the secrets of his client.
    No, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
    wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or
    unworthy to continue as an officer of the court,[14] complainant failed to
    prove any of the circumstances enumerated above that would warrant the
    disbarment or suspension of herein respondent.

    A scrutiny of the records reveals that the relationship between complainant


    and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between
    them rather than the practice of law by respondent.
    Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against
    complainant were obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with
    complainant. Respondents immediate objective was to secure the title of the
    property that complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was
    no attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy