A.C. No. 1526 January 31, 2005 NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY LUCIANO S.

HERNANDEZ,
JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GO, respondent

TL; DR: The respondent convinced the complainant to execute deeds of sale to him for her properties because he
would sell the properties and use the money to pay off the complainant’s loans. He abused her trust and kept the
lots for himself and instead, paid the creditors with his own money. The respondent is disbarred from the practice
of law.

FACTS:

The complainant Nazaria Hernandez was currently facing suits for money against her because of the unpaid loans
that her husband had left when he had abandoned his family.

Hernandez availed of the legal aid of respondent Luciano Go. The latter advised the former to sell all her lots to
him without any monetary consideration for each of the lots. The respondent promised to sell the lands to third
parties and the funds collected from the sales would be used to pay Hernandez’s creditors.

In 1974, it turned out that the respondent did not in fact sell the lots in question. What he did was to pay off the
loans using his own money. Up to the point of this complaint, the respondent still owns the lots in question.

The respondent denies all the allegations and claims that he did not breach the trust between him and his client.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the respondent should be disciplined for his actions

RULE:

YES. Respondent Atty. Jose Go is found to be unfit to practice the law profession and is duly DISBARRED from the
brotherhood of lawyers.

RATIO:

The respondent clearly abused his client’s trust in him in having convinced her to sell the lots in question in his
favor without so much as a cent going to Hernandez. He not only deceived Hernandez but he had taken advantedg
of the latter during a financial plight.

The IBP Commissioner for Bar Discipline found the respondent to be guilty of violating Canons 16 and 17 and
improperly rendered a resolution to penalize him with 6 months of suspension. The IBP Board of Governors found
this penalty to be too light and sentenced him to 3 years of suspension.

The Supreme Court, however, relied on Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which states that a
lawyer may be disbarred from the practice if he is found to have done a gross misconduct in his office. The court
found that the respondent truly did perform misconduct and the punishment that is due him should be
disbarment.

CANONS:

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."