Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    1) Federico Ramos filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Ngaseo for demanding delivery of 1,000 sqm of land that was the subject of their litigation case as payment for legal fees. 2) Atty. Ngaseo claimed Ramos promised the land as appearance fees, while Ramos denied ever promising the land. 3) The court ruled that while Atty. Ngaseo's demand for the land was unethical, it did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code since there was no actual transfer of the litigated property to the prohibited individual.

    Copyright:

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

    Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    102 views1 page
    1) Federico Ramos filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Ngaseo for demanding delivery of 1,000 sqm of land that was the subject of their litigation case as payment for legal fees. 2) Atty. Ngaseo claimed Ramos promised the land as appearance fees, while Ramos denied ever promising the land. 3) The court ruled that while Atty. Ngaseo's demand for the land was unethical, it did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code since there was no actual transfer of the litigated property to the prohibited individual.

    Original Title

    Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Federico Ramos filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Ngaseo for demanding delivery of 1,000 sqm of land that was the subject of their litigation case as payment for legal fees. 2) Atty. Ngaseo claimed Ramos promised the land as appearance fees, while Ramos denied ever promising the land. 3) The court ruled that while Atty. Ngaseo's demand for the land was unethical, it did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code since there was no actual transfer of the litigated property to the prohibited individual.

    Copyright:

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

    Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio A. Ngaseo

    Uploaded by

    amareia yap
    1) Federico Ramos filed a complaint against his former lawyer Atty. Ngaseo for demanding delivery of 1,000 sqm of land that was the subject of their litigation case as payment for legal fees. 2) Atty. Ngaseo claimed Ramos promised the land as appearance fees, while Ramos denied ever promising the land. 3) The court ruled that while Atty. Ngaseo's demand for the land was unethical, it did not violate Article 1491 of the Civil Code since there was no actual transfer of the litigated property to the prohibited individual.

    Copyright:

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

    1) A.C. No.

    6210 December 9, 2004 Respondent argues that he did not violate Article
    Federico N. Ramos vs. Atty. Patricio 1491 of the Civil Code because when he
    demanded the delivery of the 1,000 sq. m. of land
    A. Ngaseo which was offered and promised to him in lieu of
    the appearance fees, the case has been
    terminated, when the appellate court ordered the
    Facts:
    return of the 2-hectare parcel of land to the family
    of the complainant.
    Federico N. Ramos filed a complaint before the IBP
    charging his former counsel, respondent Atty.
    Issue:
    Ngaseo, of violation of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility for demanding the delivery of 1,000
    WON the demands made by Atty. Patricio A.
    sq. m. parcel of land which was the subject of
    Ngaseo constitute a violation of Art. 1491 of the
    litigation.
    New Civil Code.
    Federico Ramos alleged that he went to
    respondent Atty. Patricio Ngaseos to engage his
    Held:
    services as counsel in a case involving a piece of
    land. Respondent agreed to handle the case for an
    In all cases where Article 1491 was violated, the
    acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fee of
    illegal transaction was consummated with the
    P1,000.00 per hearing and the cost of meals,
    actual transfer of the litigated property either by
    transportation and other incidental expenses.
    purchase or assignment in favor of the prohibited
    Complainant alleges that he did not promise to pay
    individual.
    the respondent 1,000 sq. m. of land as appearance
    fees.
    In the instant case, there was no actual acquisition
    of the property in litigation since the respondent
    Complainant went to the respondent’s office to
    only made a written demand for its delivery which
    inquire about the status of the case. Respondent
    the complainant refused to comply. Mere demand
    informed him that the decision was adverse to them
    for delivery of the litigated property does not cause
    however respondent assured him that they could
    the transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibited
    still appeal the adverse judgment and asked for the
    transaction within the contemplation of Article 1491.
    additional amount of P3,850.00 and another
    Even assuming arguendo that such demand for
    P2,000.00 as allowance for research made.
    delivery is unethical; respondents act does not fall
    within the purview of Article 1491. The letter of
    Respondent claims that after the trial court
    demand was made long after the judgment in Civil
    dismissed Civil Case No. SCC 2128, he filed a
    Case became final and executory.
    timely notice of appeal and thereafter moved to be
    discharged as counsel because he had colon
    cancer. Complainant, now assisted by one Johnny
    Ramos, implored respondent to continue handling
    the case, with an offer to double the 1,000 sq. m.
    piece of land earlier promised and the remaining
    balance of P20,000.00 acceptance fee. Johnny
    Ramos made a written commitment and gave
    respondents secretary P2,000.00 of the P3,850.00
    expenses for the preparation of the appellants brief.

    The Court of Appeals rendered a favorable decision


    ordering the return of the disputed 2-hectare land to
    the complainant and his siblings. The said decision
    became final and executory on January 18, 2002.
    Since then complainant allegedly failed to contact
    respondent, which compelled him to send a
    demand letter on January 29, 2003.

    You might also like