Supreme Court suspends lawyer for land fraud

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) suspended a lawyer from practicing law for two years for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility when he misrepresented himself as the owner of a parcel of land and failing to return the money to the buyer who subsequently discovered his deceit.

All justices in the SC affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commissioner on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) that found lawyer Juan Moreno guilty of violating Rules 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and adopted its recommendation in part.

The decision was penned by Justice Antonio Carpio.

The SC said Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.  

The complaint filed by Alfredo Roa against Moreno stemmed from a transaction involving the sale of a parcel of land.

Case records show that in September 1998, Moreno sold Roa a lot on Starlite street in Cupang, Antipolo for P70,000.

Moreno did not issue a deed of sale, instead giving Roa a temporary receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy purportedly issued by the general overseer of the estate in which the lot was located.

Roa later learned the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not be registered with the Register of Deeds.

Moreno then admitted that the real owner of the lot was a certain Rubio and that there was a pending legal controversy over the lot.

On Feb. 25, 2001, Roa sent a letter to Moreno, demanding the return of the P70,000 he paid for the lot. He also filed a criminal case against Moreno before the Antipolo City Municipal Trial Court Branch 2, which convicted Moreno of swindling on Sept. 26, 2003.

The lower court sentenced Moreno to a jail term of one month and one day and ordered him to return the P70,000 to Roa.

When Moreno elevated the case to the Antipolo Regional Trial Court Branch 74, the RTC set aside the lower court’s ruling for lack of evidence and acquitted him on Dec. 20, 2005.  

On February 23, 2006 , Roa filed a complaint with the IBP. Moreno replied that what he sold to Roa was merely the right over the use of the lot, not the lot itself. He also said he never met the complainant during the negotiations for the sale of said right.

The SC said Roa “misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to complainant. He refused to return the amount paid by complainant. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction with complainant.”

The SC justices said they “cannot, and we should not, let respondent’s dishonest and deceitful conduct go unpunished.”