A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Canon 1 Code of Professional Responsibility). This rule applies not only to the lawyer’s performance of his professional duties but also to his personal or private conduct as shown in this case of Jimmy, a member of the bar.
Sometime in September 1998, Jimmy sold a parcel of land to Al who paid him the purchase price of P70,000. Jimmy did not execute a Deed of Sale for said lot. Instead he just issued a temporary receipt and a “Certificate of Land Occupancy” printed on a parchment paper strikingly similar to a certificate of title purportedly issued by the “Office of the General Overseer” of the estate on which the lot was located, and containing a verification by the “Land, Record Department” that the lot plan conforms with the record on file. He assured Al that the land could already be used and occupied based on the said certificate.
But not long after Al learned that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not be registered with the Register of Deeds. So he went to see Jimmy who admitted that the real owner of the lot was a certain Rudy and that there was a pending legal controversy. This prompted Al to demand for the return of the P70,000 he paid for the lot. But Jimmy refused, thus forcing Al to file, among others, an administrative complaint praying that Jimmy be disciplined and be ordered to return the P70,000 he paid.
In his answer, Jimmy explained that what he sold was merely the right over the use of the lot, not the lot itself. He maintained that it was not Al but a certain Eddie who paid the purchase price which was actually received by a certain Hermie. But at the hearing of the case, Jimmy did not appear despite notice whereas Al came and reiterated his story of what transpired.
So after investigation the IBP found Jimmy guilty of violating Rule 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that he be suspended for 3 months and ordered to return the P70,000 to Al. Was the IB correct.
As to the finding of guilt, the IBP is correct. Jimmy’s credibility is indeed highly questionable. He used a bogus Certificate to Al whose only fault was that he did not know better that said certificate has all the badges of intent to defraud. Al readily parted with P70,000 because of the false assurance afforded by the sham certificate.
Under Rule 1.01, in relation to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. In this case, Jimmy acted in his private capacity. He misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to Al. He refused to return the amount paid. And in a final blow, he even denied having any transaction with Al. His acts violated the trust and respect Al reposed in him as member of the bar. He clearly fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01. He failed to live up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of professional Responsibility.
Thus the penalty of three month suspension recommended by the IBP is insufficient. A penalty of two years suspension is more appropriate considering the circumstances of the case. The order of the IBP to return the money paid cannot also be sustained. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether, as officers of the court, they are still fit to be allowed to continue as member of the bar. The only concern here is Jimmy’s administratively liability. It has no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may file against each other (Roa vs. Moreno, A.C. No. 8382, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA, 693).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net