ALFREDO B. ROA, vs. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO A.C. No. 8382 April 21, 2010 FACTS: Atty.

Juan R. Moreno sold to Roa a parcel of land to Alfredo B. Roa and paid Atty. Moreno P70,000 in cash as full payment for the lot. Atty. Moreno did not issue a deed of sale instead he issued a temporary receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy. Atty. Moreno assured Roa that he could use the lot from then on. Roa learned that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not be registered in the Register of Deeds. When Roa went to see Atty. Moreno, the latter admitted that the real owner of the lot was a certain Rubio. He also said there was a pending legal controversy over the lot. Thereafter, Roa sent a letter to Atty. Moreno demanding the return of the P70,000 paid for the lot. Roa then filed a criminal case against Atty. Moreno. MTC rendered a decision convicting Atty. Moreno of the crime of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. On appeal, the RTC, for lack of evidence establishing Atty. Morenos guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted Atty. Moreno. Roa filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) an Affidavit-Complaint against Atty. Moreno. The IBP found Atty. Moreno guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended to suspend Atty. Moreno from the practice of law for three months and ordered him to return the amount of P70,000. The IBP Board of Governors forwarded the present case to the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Moreno should be disciplined and ordered to return the amount of money paid for the sale RULING: Supreme Court finds Atty. Moreno GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years. Supreme Court sustained the findings of the IBP and adopted its recommendation in part. On the Disciplinary Action: Atty. Morenos credibility is highly questionable. Records show that he even issued a bogus Certificate of Land Occupancy to Roa whose only fault was that he did not know better. The Certificate of Land Occupancy has all the badges of intent to defraud. It purports to be issued by the "Office of the General Overseer." It contains a verification by the "Lead, Record Department" that the lot plan "conforms with the record on file." It is even printed on parchment paper strikingly similar to a certificate of title. To the unlettered, it can easily pass off as a document evidencing title. True enough, Roa actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the Register of Deeds. Roa readily parted with P70,000 because of the false assurance afforded by the sham certificate.

The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of Atty. Moreno are not without recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states "A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, xxx." Further, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct." Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers 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. In the present case, Atty. Moreno acted in his private capacity. He misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to Roa. He refused to return the amount paid by Roa. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction with Roa. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is enjoyed only by those who continue to display unassailable character. Thus, lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, not just in their dealings with their clients but also in their dealings with the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and even disbarment. Atty. Morenos refusal to return to Roa the money paid for the lot is unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, Atty. Moreno failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Morenos acts violated the trust and respect Roa reposed in him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court. However, the penalty of three-month suspension recommended by the IBP is insufficient to atone for Atty. Morenos misconduct in this case. On the return of the amount of money paid for the sale Supreme Court did not sustain the IBPs recommendation ordering Atty. Moreno to return the money paid by Roa. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The court's only concern is the determination of Atty. Morenos administrative liability.

MANUEL C. YUHICO, vs. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ A.C. No. 8391 November 23, 2010

FACTS: Atty. Fred Gutierrez asked for a cash loan of P30,000.00 from Manuel Yuhico. Gutierrez then claimed that he needed money to pay for the medical expenses of his mother who was seriously ill. Yuhico immediately handed the money. In turn, Gutierrez promised to pay the loan very soon, since he was expecting to collect his attorney's fees from a Japanese client. Gutierrez again asked Yuhico for a loan, in the amount of P60,000.00, allegedly to pay the medical expenses of his wife who was also hospitalized. Again, Yuhico readily issued to Gutierrez a check amounting to P60,000.00. Again, Gutierrez promised to pay his two loans totalling to P90,000.00 "within a short time." Yuhico asked Gutierrez to pay his loans. Gutierrez failed to pay and in a text message he asked for an extension of time to pay. Later, thru a text message, Gutierrez attempted to borrow money from Yuhico again. Gutierrez claimed that his daughter needed P70,000.00 to pay the fees required to take the licensure examination in the U.S. Medical Board. Gutierrez assured him that he will pay all his debts within a month. However, this time, Yuhico refused to lend Gutierrez any amount of money. Instead, he demanded from Gutierrez the payment of his debts. Gutierrez then sent another text message to Yuhico and requested him to give him another week to pay his debts. Gutierrez failed to make the payment. Yuhico's counsel sent a demand letter to Gutierrez to pay his debts, but to no avail. Thus, Yuhico filed the instant complaint against Gutierrez before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). On January 12, 2006, the IBP-CBD directed Gutierrez to submit his Answer on the complaint against him. In a Resolution, IBP-CBD found Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and ordered him to return the amount of P90,000.00 to Yuhico, with interest until full payment. ISSUE: Whether or not Gutierrez guilty of non-payment of just debts and likewise guilty of gross misconduct RULING: Atty. Gutierrez is guilty of GROSS MISCONDUCT. He is ordered to pay the amount of P90,000.00 to the Yuhico with interest.

Deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal

proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must, at all times, faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the instant case, there is no question as to Gutierrez's guilt. His admission of the loan he contracted and his failure to pay the same leaves no room for interpretation. Neither can he justify his act of non-payment of debt by his dire financial condition. Gutierrez should not have contracted loans which are beyond his financial capacity to pay.
1avvphi1

Likewise, it cannot be overlooked Gutierrez's propensity of employing deceit and misrepresentations for the purpose of obtaining debts without the intention of paying them. Records show Gutierrez's pattern of habitually making promises of paying his debts, yet repeatedly failing to deliver. The series of text messages he sent to Yuhico promising to pay his loans, while simultaneously giving excuses without actually making good of his promises, is clearly reprehensible. Undoubtedly, his acts demonstrate lack of moral character to satisfy the responsibilities and duties imposed on lawyers as professionals and as officers of the court. Supreme Court also noted that in Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, the Court had already disbarred Gutierrez from the practice of law for gross misconduct due to non-payment of just debts and issuance of bouncing checks. In view of the foregoing, while the court agrees with the findings of the IBP, it cannot, however, adopt its recommendation to disbar Gutierrez for the second time, considering that Gutierrez had already been previously disbarred. Indeed, as the IBP pointed out, the court does not have double or multiple disbarments in its laws or jurisprudence. Neither do it have a law mandating a minimum 5year requirement for readmission, as cited by the IBP. Thus, while Gutierrez's infraction calls for the penalty of disbarment, court cannot disbar him anew.