Sanidad Vs Aguas

A.C. No.
9838, June 10, 2019

PAZ C. SANIDAD, COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY. JOSEPH JOHN GERALD
M. AGUAS, RESPONDENT.
Facts:
Sometime in 2001, Sanidad alleged that she and respondent, together with
the latter's brother, Julius M. Aguas (Julius), entered into a verbal
agreement for the sale of the co-owned subject property of the latter
located at No. 2 Gonzales Drive, Doña Pilar Subdivision, Batasan Hills,
Quezon City. They agreed that the subject property will be sold for
P1,500,000.00 and to be paid in installments. Sanidad averred that she has
been residing in the said subject property since 1983.
Thus, from 2001 to 2011, Sanidad claimed that she has made several
payments to respondent and Julius by depositing in their BPI bank
accounts. Sanidad also alleged that while she has been depositing
payments in their bank accounts, no acknowledgment receipt was ever
issued to her. She, however, maintained that she has deposited a total
payment of One Million One Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P1,152,000.00) on respondent's and Julius's BPI bank accounts, as
evidenced by the deposit slips as proof of payments.
However, Sanidad lamented that respondent took advantage of his legal

knowledge as a lawyer and employed several tactics to defraud her. She
claimed that respondent, after receiving the total amount of P1,152,000.00
from her, sent her demand letters and threatened her with eviction. 12 She
added that after she deposited her payments in respondent's bank account,
the latter also avoided meeting her and became unreachable. Sanidad
avened that she would receive telephone calls from him pressuring her to
immediately vacate the property or she will be evicted.
Feeling aggrieved, Sanidad filed the instant disbarment complaint against

respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty as charged and should be
subjected for disbarment.
Ruling:
Yes.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving,
by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial
evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 18
In the instant case, We find that the charges of Sanidad against respondent
to be worthy of belief based on the following:
First, we find substantial evidence that Sanidad indeed entered into a

contract of sale, albeit verbal, with respondent by showing proof of
payments made to the latter. She presented copies of bank deposit slips as
evidence that she has been depositing her payments for the sale of the
subject property under the BPI bank accounts of respondent and Julius;
Second, as observed by the IBP, respondent's allegations that the

payments were for rentals and his denial of the existence of the contract of
sale between him and Sanidad fail to convince considering that the
amounts of deposits made by Sanidad in respondent's and Julius's bank
account were too substantial to be regarded as payments of rentals.
Third, respondent's allegation that it was only on August 17, 2010 when he

entered into a contract of sale of the subject real property with Sanidad
which allegedly the latter was not able to pay for, is hard to believe
considering that the deposit of substantial amounts in his account and
Julius's began as early as 2001;
Fourth, despite the receipt of payments from Sanidad, respondent

apparently used his legal knowledge when he sent a demand letter dated
April 10, 2012 to vacate the subject property;
Finally, but equally important, we note that while respondent denied that he

entered into a contract of sale with Sanidad, records show that he
eventually decided to turn over the title of the subject property to Sanidad
based on a settlement agreement that the cases filed against him will be
withdrawn. Clearly, this act of respondent is inconsistent with his claim that
Sanidad's payments were for rentals, and that no payment was actually
made for the sale of the property.
Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." It is well established that
a lawyer's conduct is "not confined to the performance of his professional
duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his
professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or
whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court." 19
Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or

in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is "unlawful." "Unlawful"
conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although the
concept is broad enough to include such element. To be "dishonest"
means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray; be
unworthy; lacking in integrity, honesty, probity, integrity in principle,
fairness and straight forwardness while conduct that is "deceitful" means
the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or
device that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the
prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon. 20
From the foregoing, we find respondent's conduct in dealing with Sanidad

to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and fairness. While we
cannot conclude that respondent indeed entered into a verbal contract for
the sale of a real property despite knowledge that said verbal contract is
unenforceable due to lack of clear evidence, it is, however, apparent due to
the fact that he eventually agreed to surrender the title of the subject
property to Sanidad, that he has certainly entered into a contract of sale of
the subject property with Sanidad for which he: received payments. Why
else would he turn over the subject property to Sanidad if there was neither
an agreement to sell nor payments made therefor? Respondent's claim that
he decided to turn over the title of the subject property to Sanidad without
receiving a single centavo is outright outrageous to deserve any credibility.
Moreover, respondent never denied that he received the deposits made by

Sanidad, but he never issued her any acknowledgment receipts. He
claimed that Sanidad has been their tenant since 1983 yet no contract of
lease was ever presented to support his claim. It, thus, appears that while
respondent profited from receiving substantial amounts of moneys from
Sanidad, the latter, however, holds no concrete proof that he has been
actually receiving her payments. The interest of Sanidad, as buyer or
lessee, as the case may be, was left fully unprotected. The lack of
transparency due to respondent's failure to give acknowledgment receipts
and the lack of written contracts is highly suspicious of deceit and fraud
because it inevitably placed Sanidad in a rather disadvantageous position.
Worse, respondent has utilized the lack of written contracts and
acknowledgment receipts in threatening to evict respondent despite the
apparent receipt of payments.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Joseph John Gerald M. Aguas

guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1)
YEAR and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.

Sanidad Vs Aguas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanidad Vs Aguas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sanidad Vs Aguas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

9838, June 10, 2019

However, Sanidad lamented that respondent took advantage of his legal

Feeling aggrieved, Sanidad filed the instant disbarment complaint against

First, we find substantial evidence that Sanidad indeed entered into a

Second, as observed by the IBP, respondent's allegations that the

Third, respondent's allegation that it was only on August 17, 2010 when he

Fourth, despite the receipt of payments from Sanidad, respondent

Finally, but equally important, we note that while respondent denied that he

Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or

From the foregoing, we find respondent's conduct in dealing with Sanidad

Moreover, respondent never denied that he received the deposits made by

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Joseph John Gerald M. Aguas

You might also like