Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 179 views

    Hegna v. Paderanga - A.C. No. 5955, 9-8-09 - SAMARITA

    Uploaded by

    Evander Arcenal
    Atty. Paderanga filed an affidavit claiming ownership of a lot and vehicle that were subject to litigation and could be levied in execution of a court decision in favor of the complainant. However, the documents showed the properties were still registered under the defendants. The court found Atty. Paderanga engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by claiming ownership to prevent levy when it seemed he did not actually own the properties. As an officer of the court, he violated rules against acquiring interests in litigation and engaged in conduct violating his professional responsibilities. The court determined his suspension was warranted.

    Copyright:

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

    Hegna v. Paderanga - A.C. No. 5955, 9-8-09 - SAMARITA

    Uploaded by

    Evander Arcenal
    179 views2 pages
    Atty. Paderanga filed an affidavit claiming ownership of a lot and vehicle that were subject to litigation and could be levied in execution of a court decision in favor of the complainant. However, the documents showed the properties were still registered under the defendants. The court found Atty. Paderanga engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by claiming ownership to prevent levy when it seemed he did not actually own the properties. As an officer of the court, he violated rules against acquiring interests in litigation and engaged in conduct violating his professional responsibilities. The court determined his suspension was warranted.

    Original Title

    44. Hegna v. Paderanga- A.C. No. 5955, 9-8-09 - SAMARITA

    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. Paderanga filed an affidavit claiming ownership of a lot and vehicle that were subject to litigation and could be levied in execution of a court decision in favor of the complainant. However, the documents showed the properties were still registered under the defendants. The court found Atty. Paderanga engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by claiming ownership to prevent levy when it seemed he did not actually own the properties. As an officer of the court, he violated rules against acquiring interests in litigation and engaged in conduct violating his professional responsibilities. The court determined his suspension was warranted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    179 views2 pages

    Hegna v. Paderanga - A.C. No. 5955, 9-8-09 - SAMARITA

    Uploaded by

    Evander Arcenal
    Atty. Paderanga filed an affidavit claiming ownership of a lot and vehicle that were subject to litigation and could be levied in execution of a court decision in favor of the complainant. However, the documents showed the properties were still registered under the defendants. The court found Atty. Paderanga engaged in dishonest and deceitful conduct by claiming ownership to prevent levy when it seemed he did not actually own the properties. As an officer of the court, he violated rules against acquiring interests in litigation and engaged in conduct violating his professional responsibilities. The court determined his suspension was warranted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA VS. ATTY. GOERING G.C.

    PADERANGA
    A.C. NO. 5955, SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

    FACTS:

    Complainant was the lessee of a lot in Cebu which was owned by the heirs of Sabina
    Baclayon. On September 26, 2001, complainant filed a complaint for forcible entry
    against Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo Panaguinip.

    MTCC rendered a decision in favor of complainant, ordering therein defendants to vacate


    the leased premises and pay complainant compensatory damages for illegal occupation
    and use of the subject property, as well as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

    Subsequently, respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga filed an affidavit of Third Party
    Claim over Lot No. 3653-D-1 and FUSO vehicle, which he bought from the defendants
    in 2001, both of which could be erroneously levied by the writ of execution.

    Because of the delay in issuing the writ, herein complainant in June 2003, filed with the
    OBC a complaint against Paderanga for deliberately falsifyinf documents causing delay
    and a possible denial of justice to be served in the civil case.

    In respondent’s comment on the administrative complaint, he argued that he did not


    falsify the document and the genuineness and the due execution of the DOS was not
    affected by the fact the he failed to register them.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Atty. Paderanga is guilty of engaging in dishonest and deceitful


    conduct.

    HELD:

    YES, Article 1491 of the Civil Code, It specifically stated the justices, prosecuting
    attroneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees
    connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigations or
    levied upon execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
    their respective functions cannot acquire the property subject of litigation.

    Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be
    disbarred or suspended on any of the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or
    other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime
    involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful disobedience of
    any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
    without authority. In the present case, the Court finds respondent administratively liable
    for engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct.

    Had respondent been the rightful owner of a parcel of land and motor vehicle that were
    still registered in the name of defendants-spouses, he should have immediately disclosed
    such fact immediately and filed a third-party claim, as time was of the essence.
    Moreover, in their letter dated March 1, 2002, defendants-spouses did not mention any
    transfer of ownership of the said properties to respondent, as the former still believed that
    they owned the same. The continued possession and ownership by defendants-spouses
    was also attested to by a certain Brigida Lines, who executed an Affidavit in favor of
    complainant. Based on the foregoing, the Court is more inclined to believe that when
    complainant and defendants-spouses failed to reach an agreement, respondent came
    forward as a third-party claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said properties. He,
    therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides
    that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
    Under this rule, conduct has been construed not to pertain exclusively to the performance
    of a lawyer’s professional duties. In previous cases, the Court has held that a lawyer may
    be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity,
    which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor;
    or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

    You might also like