Ramos v. Ngaseo - Custodio
Ngaseo filed
A.C. No. 6210; December 9, 2004
DOCTRINE: Mere demand for the delivery of the
litigated property does not cause the transfer of
ownership, hence, not a prohibited transaction within
the contemplation of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code.
This is a complaint for the suspension of respondent Atty.
Patricio A. Ngaseo for violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and Article 1491 of the Civil Code (CC),
by demanding from his client, complainant Federico N. Ramos,
the delivery of 1,000 sqm of land, a litigated property, as
payment for his appearance fees.
FACTS:
Complainant’s version:
 Sometime in 1998, Ramos went to Atty. Ngaseo’s
office in Makati to engage his services as counsel in a
case involving a piece of land in San Carlos,
Pangasinan.
 Atty. Ngaseo agreed to handle the case for an
acceptance fee of ₱ 20,000, appearance fee of ₱ 1,000
per hearing and the costs of meals, transportation, and
other incidental expenses.
 Ramos alleges that he did not promise to pay Atty.
Ngaseo 1,000 sqm of land as appearance fee.
 Sometime in 1999, Ramos went to Atty. Ngaseo’s
office to inquire about the status of the case.
 Atty. Ngaseo informed him that the decision was
adverse to them because a congressman exerted
pressure upon the trial judge but reassured Ramos that
they could still appeal and asked for additional ₱ 5,850
for research.
 Subsequently, Ramos found out that Atty.
the notice of appeal 3 days after the lapse of the
reglementary period.
 Sometime in 2003, Ramos received a demand letter
from Atty. Ngaseo asking for the delivery of the 1,000
sqm piece of land which he allegedly promised as
payment for the latter’s appearance fee.
 According to Ramos, Atty. Ngaseo also threatened him
that he will file a case in court.
Respondent’s version:
 According to Atty. Ngaseo, Ramos went to his office
with his brother, Dionisio Ramos, to engage his
professional service regarding a 2 hectare parcel of
land which they lost 7 years ago earlier through an
execution of sale in favor of one Alfredo Castro.
 He alleged that Ramos was deaf, could only speak
conversational Tagalog, and was assisted by his
brother.
 That they came all the way from Pangasinan because
the 2 local lawyers there were demanding exorbitant
fees.
 Atty. Ngaseo agreed to handle the case for an
acceptance fee of ₱ 60,000 plus an appearance fee of
₱ 3,000 per hearing.
 6 months later, Ramos, with one Jose Castillo, told
Atty. Ngaseo that he was willing to pay an acceptance
fee of ₱ 40,000 and the remaining ₱ 20,000 is to be
paid after their treasure hunt operations.
 Further, Ramos offered 1,000 sqm of the subject land
if they win or from another if they lose in lieu of the ₱
3,000 appearance fee, to which Atty. Ngaseo accepted.
  Atty. Ngaseo claims that he had filed a timely notice of
appeal and moved to be discharged as counsel
because he had colon cancer.
 Ramos begged Atty. Ngaseo to continue handling the
case with an offer to double the 1,000 sqm piece of
land earlier promised.
 Meanwhile, the CA rendered a decision favorable to
them, ordering the return of the disputed land to
Ramos.
Came 2003...
 Ramos filed a complaint before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) charging Atty. Ngaseo of Violation
of the CPR for demanding the delivery of 1,000 sqm
parcel of land which was the subject of the litigation.
 IBP found Atty. Ngaseo guilty of grave misconduct and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer in volation of the CPR
and suspended him from practice of law.
 Atty. Ngaseo filed a petition for review assailing the
IBP resolution having been issued without or in excess
of jurisdiction.
 Atty. Ngaseo argues that he did not violate Art. 1491
of the CC which prohibits lawyers from acquiring either
by purchase or assignment the property or rights
involved which are the object of the litigation in which
they intervene by virtue of their profession.
 He reasoned that when he demanded the delivery of
the 1,000 sqm of land which was promised to him in
lieu of the appearance fees, the case has already been
terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ngaseo violated paragraph 5 of
Art. 1491?
HELD: No.
 The prohibition includes not only sales to private
individuals but also public or judicial sales.
 Rationale for this is that public policy disallows the
transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship
involved: the relation of trust and confidence, and the
peculiar control exercised by these persons.
 It is founded on public policy because, an attorney, by
virtue of his office, may easily take advantage of the
credibility and ignorance of his client and unduly enrich
himself at the expense of his client.
 Hence, where the property is acquired after the
termination of the case, no violation of par. 5 of Art.
1491 attaches.
 In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition of
the property in litigation since Atty. Ngaseo only made
a written demand for its delivery which Ramos refused
to comply.
 Mere demand for the delivery of the litigated property
does not cause the transfer of ownership, hence, not a
prohibited transaction within the contemplation of Art.
1491.
 Even assuming arguendo that such demand for
delivery is unethical, Atty. Ngaseo’s act does not fall
within the purview of Art. 1491 because the letter of
demand was made long after the judgment in the case
became final and executory.
 He was merely reprimanded.