Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 638 views

    Ramos V Ngaseo Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chi Odanra
    Atty. Ngaseo represented Federico Ramos in a land dispute case, agreeing to an acceptance fee of 20,000 pesos and 1,000 pesos per court appearance. Ramos alleged Ngaseo demanded 1,000 square meters of the disputed land as payment instead. The Court of Appeals later ruled in Ramos' favor. Ngaseo then sent a letter demanding delivery of the 1,000 square meters. Ramos filed a complaint, claiming this violated the prohibition on lawyers acquiring property involved in their cases. The court found Ngaseo did not actually acquire the property as ownership was not transferred by mere demand, and the demand occurred after the case was resolved, so Ngaseo did not violate the

    Copyright:

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

    Ramos V Ngaseo Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chi Odanra
    638 views1 page
    Atty. Ngaseo represented Federico Ramos in a land dispute case, agreeing to an acceptance fee of 20,000 pesos and 1,000 pesos per court appearance. Ramos alleged Ngaseo demanded 1,000 square meters of the disputed land as payment instead. The Court of Appeals later ruled in Ramos' favor. Ngaseo then sent a letter demanding delivery of the 1,000 square meters. Ramos filed a complaint, claiming this violated the prohibition on lawyers acquiring property involved in their cases. The court found Ngaseo did not actually acquire the property as ownership was not transferred by mere demand, and the demand occurred after the case was resolved, so Ngaseo did not violate the

    Original Title

    ramos v ngaseo case 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?

    Atty. Ngaseo represented Federico Ramos in a land dispute case, agreeing to an acceptance fee of 20,000 pesos and 1,000 pesos per court appearance. Ramos alleged Ngaseo demanded 1,000 square meters of the disputed land as payment instead. The Court of Appeals later ruled in Ramos' favor. Ngaseo then sent a letter demanding delivery of the 1,000 square meters. Ramos filed a complaint, claiming this violated the prohibition on lawyers acquiring property involved in their cases. The court found Ngaseo did not actually acquire the property as ownership was not transferred by mere demand, and the demand occurred after the case was resolved, so Ngaseo did not violate the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    638 views1 page

    Ramos V Ngaseo Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chi Odanra
    Atty. Ngaseo represented Federico Ramos in a land dispute case, agreeing to an acceptance fee of 20,000 pesos and 1,000 pesos per court appearance. Ramos alleged Ngaseo demanded 1,000 square meters of the disputed land as payment instead. The Court of Appeals later ruled in Ramos' favor. Ngaseo then sent a letter demanding delivery of the 1,000 square meters. Ramos filed a complaint, claiming this violated the prohibition on lawyers acquiring property involved in their cases. The court found Ngaseo did not actually acquire the property as ownership was not transferred by mere demand, and the demand occurred after the case was resolved, so Ngaseo did not violate the

    Copyright:

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

    A.C. No. 6210.

    December 9, 2004 lawyer in violation of the Code of Professional


    FEDERICO N. RAMOS, complainant, Responsibility and recommended that he be
    vs. suspended from the practice of law for 1 year.
    ATTY. PATRICIO A. NGASEO, respondent.
    Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate Article
    Facts: Federico Ramos went to Atty. Patricio Ngaseos 1491 of the Civil Code because when he demanded
    to engage his services as counsel in a case involving a the delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. of land which was
    piece of land in Pangasinan. Atty. Ngaseo agreed to offered and promised to him in lieu of the
    handle the case for an acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fees, the case has been terminated,
    appearance fee of P1,000.00 per hearing and the when the appellate court ordered the return of the
    cost of meals, transportation and other incidental 2-hectare parcel of land to the family of the
    expenses. Ramos alleged that he did not promise to complainant.
    pay the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as
    appearance fees. He further contends that he can collect the unpaid
    appearance fee even without a written contract on
    On September 16, 1999, Ramos went to the Atty. the basis of the principle of quantum meruit. He
    Ngaseo’s office to inquire about the status of the claims that his acceptance and appearance fees are
    case. Atty. informed him that the decision was reasonable because a Makati based legal
    adverse to them because a congressman exerted practitioner, would not handle a case for an
    pressure upon the trial judge. However, Atty. Ngaseo acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and P1,000.00 per
    assured him that they could still appeal the adverse court appearance.
    judgment and asked for the additional amount of
    P3,850.00 and another P2,000.00 on September 26, Issue: Whether Art. 1491 NCC prohibiting lawyers
    2000 as allowance for research made. from acquiring either by purchase or assignment the
    property or rights involved which are the object of
    On January 29, 2003, Ramos received a demand- the litigation in which they intervene by virtue of
    letter from the Atty. Ngaseo asking for the delivery their profession is violated by Atty. Ngaseo.
    of the 1,000 sq. m. piece of land which he allegedly
    promised as payment for his appearance fee. In the Held: No. In the instant case, there was no actual
    same letter, Atty. also threatened to file a case in acquisition of the property in litigation since the
    court if the complainant would not confer with him respondent only made a written demand for its
    and settle the matter within 30 days. delivery which the complainant refused to comply.
    Mere demand for delivery of the litigated property
    On July 18, 2001, the Court of Appeals rendered a does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not
    favorable decision ordering the return of the a prohibited transaction within the contemplation of
    disputed 2-hectare land to the Ramos and his Article 1491. Even assuming arguendo that such
    siblings. The said decision became final and demand for delivery is unethical, respondent’s act
    executory on January 18, 2002. Since then does not fall within the purview of Article 1491. The
    complainant allegedly failed to contact Atty. Ngaseo, letter of demand dated January 29, 2003 was made
    which compelled him to send a demand letter on long after the judgment in Civil Case No. SCC-2128
    January 29, 2003. became final and executory on January 18, 2002.
    Ramos then filed a complaint before the IBP charging
    his former counsel, Atty. Ngaseo, of violation of the
    Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding
    the delivery of 1,000 sq. m. parcel of land which was
    the subject of litigation.

    IBP Commissioner found the Atty. Ngaseo guilty of


    grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a

    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