*

A.C. No. 5499. August 16, 2005.

WILSON PO CHAM, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO

D. PIZARRO, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Grounds; The misconduct

of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which
shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and
good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the privileges which
his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with
disbarment or suspension.·The Bar is enjoined to maintain a high
standard of not only legal proficiency but of honesty and fair
dealing. Thus, a member should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the
public

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. The

misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private
capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of
the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may
be sanctioned with disbarment or suspension. Thus, under Section
27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, a member of the Bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney on the
following grounds: 1) deceit; 2) malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office; 3) grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyerÊs oath; 6)
willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7)
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
Same; Same; Same; Sales; Neither tax receipts nor realty tax
declarations are sufficient evidence of the right of possession over
realty unless supported by other effective proof.·The tax declaration
and receipt which respondent presented do not help his cause any
as neither tax receipts nor realty tax declarations are sufficient
evidence of the right of possession over realty unless supported by
other effective proof. The presentation of a tax declaration must
indeed have been a „pretext,‰ as observed by the PENR in its
earlier-quoted portion of its letter-directive to the Balanga
Municipal Assessor „that the area occupied . . . [is] within alienable
and disposable land.‰ Respondent must thus be faulted for
fraudulently inducing complainant to purchase, for P3,372,533.00,
non-existent „irrevocable rights, interest and participation‰ over an
inalienable property.
Same; Same; Same; In a disbarment proceeding, it is
immaterial that the complainant is not blameless or is in pari
delicto as this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant,
but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members to protect
the public and the courts.·To be sure, complainant is not entirely
blameless. Had he exhibited a modicum of prudence before entering
into the transaction with respondent, he would have spared himself
from respondentÊs sham. It is jurisprudentially established though
that in a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the
complainant is not blameless or is in pari delicto as this is not a
proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the
law profession of unworthy members to protect the public and the
courts.

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 3

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

Same; Same; Same; It is not sound judicial policy to await the

final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a
lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, the Supreme Court will be
rendered helpless from vigorously applying the rules on admission to
and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole
period that the criminal case is pending final disposition when the
objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.·The record
does not disclose the status of the estafa case against respondent.
His conviction or acquittal is not, however, essential insofar as the
present administrative case against him is concerned.
Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.
They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of x x x
criminal cases. The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In
a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, „clearly
preponderant evidence‰ is all that is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the
same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings. It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in
the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of
liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondentÊs
acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively. (Emphasis supplied) It is not thus sound
judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before
a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this
Court will be rendered helpless from vigorously applying the rules
on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession
during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final
disposition when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly
disparate.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court.

Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Ricardo C. Pilares, Jr. for complainant.
Lindbergh S. Villamil for respondent.
4

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Before this Court is an administrative complaint for

disbarment filed by Wilson Po Cham (complainant) against
Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro (respondent) for commission of
falsehood and misrepresentations in violation of a lawyerÊs
oath.
 Complainant gives the following account of the facts that
spawned the filing of the present administrative complaint.
Sometime in July 1995, Emelita Cañete (Cañete),
Elenita Alipio (Alipio), and now deceased Mario Navarro
(Navarro) who was then the Municipal Assessor of Morong,
Bataan, offered for sale to him a parcel of land with an area
of approximately forty (40) hectares, identified as Lot 1683
of Cad. Case No. 262, situated at Sitio Gatao, Nagbalayong,
Morong, Bataan (the property).
He having expressed interest in the offer, Cañete and
Navarro arranged a meeting between him and respondent
1
at the latterÊs residence in Balanga, Bataan where
respondent categorically represented to him that the
property being offered for sale was alienable and
2
disposable. Respondent in fact presented to him 1) Real
3
Property Tax Order of Payment dated July 10, 1995
covering the property signed by Edna P. Pizarro as
Municipal Treasurer and Navarro as Municipal Assessor;
4
2) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 25, 1995 purportedly
executed by the alleged previous actual occupant of the
property, one Jose R. Monzon (Monzon), transferring all his
rights, interest and possession thereover in favor of Virgilio
Banzon (Banzon), Rolando B. Zabala (Zabala) and
respondent for an agreed consideration of P500,000.00; and
5
3) Special Power of Attorney dated July 25, 1995 executed
by Banzon and Zabala authorizing him (respondent) to:

_______________

1 TSN, September 13, 2002 at p. 45.

2 Exhibit „A,‰ IBP Records at p. 33.
3 Rollo at p. 9.
4Id., at p. 10.
5Id., at p. 13.

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 5

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

1. x x x offer to sell [their] rights over a certain parcel of land,

which is more particularly described as follows:

AREA: 40 has. more or less situated at Pook Batangas,

Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan covered by Tax Declaration No. 6066
 PIN #108-08-044-05-126

2. x x x negotiate and enter into a contract for the consumation

(sic) of sale of the subject property; and to sign the same.
3. x x x receive proceeds thereof with obligation to distribute
the corresponding share of each co-owner;
6
x x x (Italics supplied)

On July 25, 1995, he as buyer and respondent as seller

7
executed an Option to Buy, the pertinent portions of which
provide:

WHEREAS, the SELLER is the owner and Attorney-In-Fact of his

co-owners of rights with planted trees (improvements) containing an
area of FORTY THREE (43) hectares, situated in Pook Batangas,
Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan; (Portion of Lot 1683, Cad. 262,
Morong Cadastre), covered by Tax Declaration 6066.
WHEREAS, the BUYER is interested to buy the same for a total
price of THREE MILLION AND SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P3,700,000.00) payable in two (2) gives (sic), as follows:

a) Earnest money of P10,000.00 upon signing of this contract and

the balance of full payment within three (3) weeks from date
hereof which offer the SELLER accepts;

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing

premises and the terms and conditions hereunder specified the
parties have agreed on the following:

1) That the Buyer shall give an option money and earnest (sic)
of P10,000.00 upon signing of this contract, which shall form
part of the contract price if and when the buyer comply (sic)
with his obligation to pay in full within three (3) weeks from
date hereof, otherwise should the BUYER fails (sic) to
comply with his obligation

_______________

6Ibid.

7Id., at p. 11.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro
 to pay in full on the scheduled period the P10,000.00 earnest
money shall be forfeited in favor of the SELLER and the Option to
Buy is automatically cancelled.

2) That the SELLER upon full payment of the price shall

execute a final Deed of Sale and shall surrender all
documents, plans and paper relative to the properties
subject of sale;
3) That the SELLER shall warrants (sic) their rights and
claims over the above stated properties including the trees
planted on it as against the rights of third party except that
8
of the government. (Emphasis and italics supplied)

In accordance with the terms of the Option to Buy, he paid

respondent the amount of P10,000.00 for which respondent
9
issued the corresponding Receipt reading:

Received the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) from

MR. WILSON CHAM, representing earnest/option money for Lot
1683 of Cad. Case No. 262 situated at Boundaries:
NORTH : Right of Catalino Agujo
SOUTH : National Road-Bagac-Morong
WEST : Right of Nicasio Canta
EAST : Sapang Batang Panao
including the trees and improvement situated thereon.
Full payment shall be paid within three (3) weeks from date
10
hereof. (Underscoring supplied)

On August 21, 11
1995, respondent executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale over the property in his favor, the pertinent
portions of which read as follows:

For and in consideration of the sum of THREE MILLION THREE

HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
THIRTY THREE (P3,372,533.00), Philippine Currency, the

_______________

8Ibid.

9Id., at p. 12.
10Ibid.

11Id., at pp. 14-16.

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 7

Po Cham vs. Pizarro
receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged from the BUYER to the
entire satisfaction of the SELLERS, the said SELLERS do by these
presents SELL, TRANSFER and CONVEY, in manner absolute and
irrevocable, in favor of the said BUYER, his heirs and assigns, all
their rights, interest and participation over that certain real
estate destined for, and in actual use as fruit land, situated at Pook
Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan and more particularly
described as follows:
Location : Pook Batangas, Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan
Area : That portion of Lot 1683, Cad. 262, Morong Cadastre,
containing an area of 392,155 square meters more or less.
Boundaries : North : Right of Catalino Agujo
South : National Road, Bagac-Morong
West : Right of Nicasio Canta
East : Sapang Batang Panao
The SELLERS do hereby declare that the boundaries of the
foregoing land are visible by means of monuments, creeks and trees;
that the land including the permanent improvements existing
thereon consist of fruit-bearing trees assessed for the current year
at TWO HUNDRED SIXTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
P262,400.00 as per Tax Declaration No. 5010; and that the property
is presently in the possession of the SELLERS.
The SELLERS hereby agree with the BUYER that they are the
absolute owners of the rights over the said property; that they
have the perfect right to convey the same; that they acquired their
rights over the said property by absolute deed of sale from Jose R.
Monzon who acquired his rights over the property from Marianito
Holgado; that Marianito Holgado acquired his right from Pedro de
Leon who, in turn, acquired his right from Julian Agujo who was
the original owner who cleared the land and who was in possession
of the same immediately after the Second World War.
The SELLERS warrant their rights and claims over the
aforedescribed real estate including the trees planted thereon and
they undertake to defend the same unto said Vendee, his heirs and
assigns against the claims of any third person
12
whomsoever. (Emphasis and italics supplied)

_______________

12Id., at pp. 14-15.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Po Cham vs. Pizarro

Respondent thereafter 13
furnished him with a copy of Tax
Declaration No. 5010 with Property Index No. 018-08-004-
05-126 issued in his (respondentÊs) name and his alleged
14
co-
owners, and Real Property Tax Receipt No. 025201 dated
August 17, 1995 issued in his (respondentÊs) name.
He thus gave respondent two checks dated August 21,
1995 representing the purchase price of the rights over the15
property, Asian Bank Corporation Check No. GA063210
in the amount of P168,627.00 payable to respondent,
16
and
Asian Bank ManagerÊs Check No. 004639GA in the
amount of P3,193,906.00 payable to respondent, Banzon
and Zabala.
He subsequently took possession of the property and
installed a barbed wire fence at its front portion. Soon
after, however, a forest guard approached him and
informed him that the property could17 not be fenced as it
was part of the Bataan National Park.
Upon investigation, he discovered that the property is
not an alienable or disposable land susceptible18
of private
ownership. He thus secured a Certification from the
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENR) in Bagac, Bataan of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) dated July 2,
1998, signed by CENR Officer Laurino D. Macadangdang,
reading:

This pertains to your request for a certification as to the status of

land claimed by spouses Perfecto and Purificacion, Jose Monson, et
al., Virgilio Banzon and Edilberto Pizarro, all located at
Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan.
Please be informed that per verification conducted by the
personnel of this Office, said lands fall within the Bataan Natural
Park

_______________

13Id., at p. 17.
14Id., at p. 18.
15Id., at p. 19.
16Id., at p. 20.
17 Exhibit „A,‰ IBP Records at p. 34.
18 Rollo at p. 22.

9
 VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 9
Po Cham vs. Pizarro

per L.C. Map/N.P. Map No. 34 as certified on December 1, 1945.

Under the Public Land Law, lands within this category are not
19
subject for disposition. (Italics supplied)
20
He also obtained a Letter-directive dated August 31, 1995
issued by Officer-in-Charge Ricardo R. Alarcon of the
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENR) of Balanga, Bataan to the Municipal Assessor, the
pertinent portions of which read:

Please be informed that it comes to our attention that there are

some forest occupants that are securing land tax
declarations from your office in (sic) the pretext that the area
they occupied (sic) were (sic) within alienable and disposable
lands. Presently, this tax declaration is being used in the
illegal selling of right [of] possession within the Bataan
Natural Park which is prohibited under our laws.
xxx
In this regard, I would like to request for your assistance by way
of informing us and in controlling this land rush and massive
selling and buying of rights of possession within prohibited areas as
21
stated above. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
22
Upon his request, the PENR issued a Certification dated
March 14, 1996 stating that those named by respondent as
prior owners of rights over the property from whom
respondent and his alleged co-owners acquired their alleged
rights were not among those inventoried as occupants per
the PENRÊs 1978 to 1994 Forest Occupancy Census (IFO)
Survey.
Despite repeated demands, respondent refused23to return
the purchase price of the rights over the property.

_______________

19Ibid.

20Id., at pp. 23-24.

21Ibid.

22Id., at p. 21.
23 IBP Records at p. 35.

10
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Po Cham vs. Pizarro
24
In his present complaint dated September 10, 2001,
complainant charges respondent to have violated his oath
as a member of the Bar in committing manifest falsehood
and evident misrepresentation by employing fraudulent
means to lure him into buying rights over the property
which property
25
he represented to be disposable and
alienable. 26
In his Comment dated January 12, 2002, respondent
denied having employed deceit or having pretended to co-
own rights over the property or having represented that it
was alienable and disposable. He claimed that
complainant, being engaged in speculation in the purchase
of property, knew exactly 27
the character and nature of the
object of his purchase; and that despite complainantÊs
awareness that he was merely „buying rights to forest
land,‰ he just the same voluntarily entered into the
transaction because of the propertyÊs proximity to the Subic
Bay Economic Zone.
Respondent surmised that complainant bought the
rights over the property in the hope that lands belonging to
the public domain in Morong „would be eventually declared
alienable and disposable
28
to meet
29
the rising demand for
economic zones.‰ By Resolution of February 6, 2002, this
Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation or decision within ninety (90) days from
notice.
On30May 6, 2002, complainant filed before the IBP his
Reply to respondentÊs Comment, maintaining that the
sale of rights over the property was attended with deceit as
respondent deliberately did not disclose that the property
was

_______________

24 Rollo at pp. 1-8.

25Id., at p. 5.
26Id., at pp. 28-35.
27Id., at p. 30.
28Id., at p. 34.
29Id., at p. 38.
30 IBP Records at pp. 4-10.
 11

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 11

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

31
within the confines of the Bataan National Park. And he
denied being engaged in speculation, he claiming that with
his purchase of the property, he would venture into low-cost
32
housing for the employees of the nearby Subic Bay area.
To complainantÊs
33
Reply, respondent filed his Rejoinder
on June 21, 2002. 34
Complainant
35
later filed his Affidavit and Position
Paper on June 21, 2002 and September 17, 2001,
respectively, reiterating his assertions in his previous
pleadings.
The record shows that complainant filed a criminal
complaint for estafa against respondent,36
Banzon, Zabala,
Cañete, Alipio and Navarro in 1999 arising from the
questioned sale of rights. The complaint was twice
dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On
petition for review, however, the Department of Justice, 37
through then Secretary Hernando B. Perez, by Resolution
of March 6, 2002, reversed the dismissal of the complaint
as it found probable cause to indict respondent et al. in
court. An information for estafa was thereupon filed
against respondent et al. before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-00-
94232.
By Report and Recommendation of April 20, 2004, the
IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through
Commissioner Lydia A. Navarro, finding respondent to
have violated his oath as a member of the Bar to do no
falsehood and misrepresentations, recommended his
suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months,
subject to the approval of the members of the Board of
Governors. Pertinent portions of the Report and
Recommendation read:

_______________

31Id., at p. 6.
32Id., at p. 8.
33Id., at pp. 23-25.
34 Exhibit „A,‰ Id., at pp. 33-35.
35Id., at pp. 73-88.
 36 TSN, September 13, 2002 at p. 88.
37 IBP Records at pp. 11-15.

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

. . . [I]t is evident that as early as of (sic) 1992, the Implementing

38
Rules and Regulations of NIPAS ACT prohibited the illegal selling
of rights or possession of the areas occupied within the Bataan
Natural Park, the subject property not excluded as per letter of OIC
CENRO Laurino D. Mapadanig [illegible], Bagac, Bataan per L.C.
map/N.P. Map No. 34 to the Municipal Assessor therein and
certified on December 1, 1945 that subject property which is within
this category was not subject for disposition; a fact supposed to be
known by the respondent being a resident of Balanga, Bataan and
was in the practice of his profession also in said area.
Aside from the fact that the alleged original owner Monzon was
not among those inventoried occupants as per Forest Occupancy
(IFO) Survey since 1978 up to the latest census in 1994 from whom
respondent allegedly bought the subject property; the Absolute Deed
of Sale executed between the complainant Wilson Po Cham and the
respondent relative to the same subject property was not notarized
which partook the nature of a private and not official document.
Although respondent furnished complainant the foregoing
documents to prove their rights, interest and possession to the
subject property, respondent and his co-owners failed to show a
permit from the government conferring upon them rights or
concessions over the subject property, which formed part of the
Bataan Natural Park classified as public and not subject to
disposition, therefore respondent and his co-owners have no rights
and interests whatsoever over the subject property and their
representations to complainant were simply not true but a falsehood.
Respondent being extensively conversant and knowledgeable
about the law took advantage of his versatility in the practice of law
and committed misrepresentations that he and his co-owners have
irrevocable rights, interests and possession over the subject
property which convinced complainant into purchasing subject
property unmindful that the same is not alienable or disposable
being a portion of the public domain; whereby respondent violated
his solemn oath as member of the Philippine Bar for having
committed such falsehood and misrepresentations to the
39
complainant. (Italics supplied).
_______________

38 Republic Act No. 7586, otherwise known as the National Integrated

Protected Areas System Act of 1992.
39 Report and Recommendation at pp. 9-11.

13

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 13

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

By CBD Resolution No. XVI-2004-407 of October 7, 2004,

the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
April 20, 2004 Committee Report and Recommendation.
The case was forwarded to this Court for 40
final action
pursuant to Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
The IBP findings are well-taken.
The Bar is enjoined to maintain a high standard of not 41
only legal proficiency but of honesty and fair dealing.
Thus, a member should refrain from doing any act which
might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust
reposed by the public 42 in the fidelity, honesty and integrity
of the legal profession.
The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional
or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to
thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer upon 43
him, may be sanctioned
with disbarment or suspension.
Thus, under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney on the following grounds: 1)
deceit; 2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; 3)
grossly immoral conduct; 4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; 5) violation of the lawyerÊs oath; 6) willful
disobedi-

_______________

40 Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys.

41 Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 413 (1997).
42Ibid.

43 Lao v. Medel, 405 SCRA 227, 232 (2003) (citations omitted),

Barnachea v. Quiocho, 399 SCRA 1, 7 (2003) (citation omitted), Zaguirre
v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658, 666 (2003) (citation omitted), Rivera v. Corral,
384 SCRA 1, 9 (2002) (citation omitted), Ong v. Unto, 376 SCRA 152, 160
(2002) (citation omitted), Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr., 337 SCRA 622, 628
(2000) (citation omitted), Cruz v. Jacinto, 328 SCRA 636, 641 (2000)
(citation omitted), Maligsa v. Cabanting, 272 SCRA 408, 414 (1997)
(citation omitted), In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567, 572 (1923).

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

ence to any lawful order of a superior court; and 7) willfully

appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
And he may be faulted under Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which mandates a member of
the Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for the law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically enjoins him
not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. „Conduct,‰ as used in this rule, is not limited to
conduct exhibited in 44
connection with the performance of
professional duties.
In the case at bar, as reflected above, complainant
presented certifications from the DENR that the property
is part of the public domain and not disposable as it is
within the Bataan National
45
Park. Indeed, by virtue of
Proclamation No. 24 issued on December 1, 1945, all
properties of the public domain therein designated as part
of the Bataan National Park were withdrawn from sale,
settlement or other disposition, subject to private rights.
On the other hand, respondent has utterly failed to
substantiate his documented claim of having irrevocable
rights and interests over the property which he could have
conveyed to complainant. E.g., he could have presented any
document issued by the government conferring upon him
and his alleged co-owners, or even upon his alleged
predecessors-in-interest, with any such right or interest,
but he presented none. He merely presented a Deed of
Absolute Sale purportedly executed by a certain Jose R.
Monzon in his, BanzonÊs and ZabalaÊs favor on July 25,
1995, a month shy of the execution on August 21, 1995 of
the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of complainant.

_______________

44 Co v. Bernardino, 285 SCRA 102, 108 (1998), Lizaso v. Amante, 198

SCRA 1, 11 (1991).
45 Establishing and Designating a Parcel of the Public Domain
Situated in the Municipalities of Hermosa, Orani, Samal, Abucay,
Balanga, Pilar, Bagac and Morong, Province of Bataan and Municipality
of Subic, Province of Zambales, as „Bataan National Park.‰

15

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 15

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

The tax declaration and receipt which respondent

presented do not help his cause any as neither tax receipts
nor realty tax declarations are sufficient evidence of the
right of possession
46
over realty unless supported by other
effective proof. The presentation of a tax declaration must
indeed have been a „pretext,‰ as observed by the PENR in
its earlier-quoted portion of its letter-directive to the
Balanga Municipal Assessor „that the area occupied . . . [is]
within alienable and disposable land.‰
Respondent must thus be faulted for fraudulently
inducing complainant to purchase, for P3,372,533.00, non-
existent „irrevocable rights, interest and participation‰ over
an inalienable property.47
In Lizaso v. Amante where therein respondent lawyer
enticed the therein complainant to invest in the casino
business with the proposition that her investment would
yield her substantial profit, but therein respondent not
only failed to deliver the promised return on the
investment but also the principal thereof, this Court took
occasion to expound on sanctioning lawyers for committing
fraud, deceit or falsehood in their private dealings:

_______________

46 N. Peña, N. Peña, Jr and N. Peña, REGISTRATION OF LAND

TITLES AND DEEDS, 72 (1994 ed) (citation omitted).
47 198 SCRA 1 (1991); Vide: Bautista v. Gonzales, 182 SCRA 151 (1990)
where the therein respondent lawyer was suspended for inducing therein
complainant to enter into a contract with him for the development into a
residential subdivision of a parcel of land while knowing fully well that
the said property was already sold at a public auction; Melendrez v.
Decena, 176 SCRA 662 (1989) where the therein lawyer was sanctioned
for inducing therein complainants to sign real estate mortgages to secure
the loan they obtained from him by his false and fraudulent
representations that the documents were mere formalities; In re: Atty.
Quiambao, 102 Phil. 940 (1958) where this Court sanctioned therein
respondent lawyer for engineering a scheme to induce therein
complainant to purchase a parcel of land knowing fully well that it was
not for sale, thereby succeeding in taking P12,000.00 which he
appropriated for his own use and benefit.

16

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

It is true, of course, that there was no attorney-client relationship

between respondent Amante and complainant Cuyugan-Lizaso. The
transaction that complainant entered into with respondent did not
require respondent to perform professional legal services for
complainant nor did that transaction relate to the rendition of
professional services by respondent to any other person.
As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re Vicente
Pelaez the principle that it can exercise its power to discipline
lawyers for causes which do not involve the relationship of an
attorney and client. x x x

„x x x [A]s a general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to

discipline one of its officers for misconduct alleged to have been
committed in his private capacity. But this is a general rule with many
exceptions. The courts sometimes stress the point that the attorney has
shown, through misconduct outside of his professional dealings, a want of
such professional honesty as render him unworthy of public confidence,
and an unfit and unsafe person to manage the legal business of others.
The reason why such a distinction can be drawn is because it is the court
which admits an attorney to the bar, and the court requires for such
admission the possession of a good moral character.
x x x‰

The rationale of the rule that misconduct, indicative of moral

unfitness, whether relating to professional or non-professional
matters, justifies suspension or disbarment, was expressed by Mr.
Chief Justice Prentice in In Re Disbarment of Peck, with eloquence
and restraint:

„As important as it is that an attorney be competent to deal with the

oftentimes intricate matters which may be in-trusted to him, it is
infinitely more so that he be upright and trustworthy. Unfortunately, it is
not easy to limit membership in the profession to those who satisfy the
standard of test of fitness. But scant progress in that direction can be
hoped for if, in the determination of the qualification of professional
fitness, non-professional dishonor and dishonesty in whatsoever path of
life is to be ignored. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected
as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other relations. x x x
misconduct, indicative of moral

17

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 17

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or nonprofessional,

justifies dismission as well as exclusion from the bar.‰

The rule in this jurisdiction was stated by Mr. Justice Malcolm in

Piatt v. Abordo x x x:

„The courts are not curators of the morals of the bar. At the same time
the profession is not compelled to harbor all persons whatever their
character, who are fortunate enough to keep out of prison. As good
character is an essential qualification for admission of an attorney to
practice, when the attorneyÊs character is bad in such respects as to show
that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an
48
attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline him.‰ (Italics in the
original)
49
This Lizaso ruling50
was reiterated in Co v. Bernardino
and Lao v. Medel.
To be sure, complainant is not entirely blameless. Had
he exhibited a modicum of prudence before entering into
the transaction with respondent, he would have spared
himself from respondentÊs sham.
It is jurisprudentially established though that in a
disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the
complainant is not blameless or is in pari delicto as this is
not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one
to purge the law profession51
of unworthy members to protect
the public and the courts.
The record does not disclose the status of the estafa case
against respondent. His conviction or acquittal is not,
however, essential insofar as52 the present administrative
case against him is concerned.

_______________

48 Lizaso v. Amante, supra at pp. 9-11 (citations omitted).

 49 285 SCRA 102 (1998).
50 405 SCRA 227 (2003).
51 Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658, 664 (2003) (citation omitted),
Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586, 592 (1956).
52 Vide: De Jesus v. Collado, 216 SCRA 619 (1992).

18

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own.

They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of x x x
criminal cases.
The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal
case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, „clearly
preponderant evidence‰ is all that is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the
same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
proceedings.
It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the
criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of
liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondentÊs
acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
53
administratively. (Emphasis supplied)

It is not thus sound judicial policy to await the final

resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a
lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be
rendered helpless from vigorously applying the rules on
admission to and continuing membership in the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal case is
pending final disposition when 54the objectives of the two
proceedings are vastly disparate.
While the facts and circumstances of the case do not
warrant the imposition of so severe a penalty as
disbarment, the inherent power of this Court to discipline
an errant member of the Bar must, nonetheless, be
exercised as it cannot be denied that respondent violated
his solemn oath as a lawyer55not to engage in unlawful,
dishonest or deceitful conduct.
The penalty of suspension for three (3) months
recommended by the IBP is not, however, commensurate to
the gravity of the wrong committed by respondent. This
Court

_______________

53 Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Naldoza, 315 SCRA

406, 413 (1999) (citations omitted).
54 In re Brillantes, 76 SCRA 1, 15 (1977).
55 Rivera v. Corral, 384 SCRA 1, 9 (2002) (citation omitted).

19

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005 19

Po Cham vs. Pizarro

finds that respondentÊs suspension from the practice of law

for One (1) Year is warranted.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for One (1) Year and
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar offense will merit a more severe penalty.
Let copies of this Decision be entered in the personal
record of respondent as a member of the Bar and furnished
the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts of the country.
SO ORDERED.

Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Corona and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro suspended from practice of law

for one (1) year, with stern warning against repetition of
similar offense.

Notes.·Procedural due process in disbarment or

suspension proceedings require that the respondent be
given full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the
charges against him, to produce witnesses in his own
behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel. (Sattar vs.
Lopez, 271 SCRA 290 [1997])
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and
afford no redress for private grievance·they are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare,
and the complainant or the person who called the attention
of the court to the attorneyÊs alleged misconduct is in no
sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome
 except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice. (Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos, 285
SCRA 93 [1998])

··o0o··

20

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.