ALFREDO B.

ROA,
vs.
ATTY. JUAN R. MORENOA.C. No. 8382 April 21, 2010FACTS:
Atty. Juan R. Moreno sold to Roa a parcel of land to Alfredo B. Roa and paid Atty. Moreno P70,000in
cash as full payment for the lot. Atty. Moreno did not issue a deed of sale instead he issued atemporary
receipt and a Certificate of Land Occupancy. Atty. Moreno assured Roa that he could usethe 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
certainRubio. 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 PenalCode. On appeal, the RTC, for
lack of evidence establishing Atty. Morenos guilt beyond reasonabledoubt, 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
ProfessionalResponsibility and recommended to suspend Atty. Moreno from the practice of law for
three monthsand ordered him to return the amount of P70,000. The IBP Board of Governors forwarded
thepresent case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Moreno should be disciplined and ordered to return the amount of money paidfor
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 bogusCertificate
of Land Occupancy to Roa whose only fault was that he did not know better. TheCertificate 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 thelot plan "conforms with
the record on file." It is even printed on parchment paper strikingly similar to acertificate of title. To the
unlettered, it can easily pass off as a document evidencing title. Trueenough, 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 shamcertificate
The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of Atty. Moreno are not without recourse
inlaw. 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 notengage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
"
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties.
Alawyer 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, andgood
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 thelot he sold to Roa. He
refused to return the amount paid by Roa. As a final blow, he denied havingany 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 displayunassailable 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 violationof 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 thetrust 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
moneypaid by Roa. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of
thecourt is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The court's only concern is
thedetermination of Atty. Morenos administrative liability