G.R. No. A.C. No. 6057; June 27, 2006
Peter T. Donton, Complainant, vs. Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Peter T. Donton filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco for serious misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from respondent’s role in preparing and notarizing an Occupancy Agreement dated September 11, 1995. In his own affidavit, respondent admitted he prepared the document for Duane O. Stier, a U.S. citizen disqualified from owning land in the Philippines. The agreement was part of a scheme where the property title was transferred to complainant, a Filipino, but with accompanying documents, including the Occupancy Agreement, designed to guarantee Stier’s recognition as the actual owner and his undisturbed use of the property.
Respondent, in his defense, claimed the disbarment case was instigated by complainant’s counsel because he refused to act as a witness in a related criminal case. He admitted preparing and notarizing the Occupancy Agreement but asserted its genuineness. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated and found respondent liable, recommending a six-month suspension from the practice of law, which its Board of Governors adopted and forwarded to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Emmanuel O. Tansingco violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by preparing legal instruments that circumvent the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of land.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must not counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is illegal or fraudulent. By respondent’s own admission, he was aware Stier, a foreign national, was constitutionally disqualified from owning land. Despite this, he facilitated the property’s transfer to complainant’s name and then prepared several documents, including the Occupancy Agreement, specifically to guarantee Stier’s continued control and ownership rights, thereby evading the legal prohibition.
This act constituted advising and aiding a client in a scheme to circumvent the law, a direct violation of a lawyer’s oath to uphold the Constitution and the legal system. Using legal knowledge to achieve an unlawful end amounts to malpractice. The Court upheld the IBP’s modified recommendation, suspending respondent from the practice of law for six months, effective upon the decision’s finality. The penalty serves to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and deter lawyers from facilitating illegal schemes.