Case Digest: CHAM v. ATTY. PIZARRO

WILSON PO CHAM v. ATTY. EDILBERTO PIZARRO

A.C. No. 5499, 16 August 2005

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.

Upon Atty. Edilberto Pizarro’s representations to complainant Wilson Po Cham (Po Cham) that a certain parcel of land being offered for sale to him was alienable and disposable, Po Cham gave Atty. Pizarro two checks representing the purchase price of the said property. Po Cham 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 could not be fenced for the reason that it was part of the Bataan National Park. Upon investigation, Po Cham discovered that the property is not an alienable or disposable land susceptible of private ownership.

Po Cham demanded the return of the purchase price but Atty. Pizarro did not heed to the demand. Po Cham thereafter charged Atty. Pizarro of violation of his oath as a member of the Bar.

The Supreme Court (SC) referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation or decision. The IBP, in its Report and Recommendation, found Atty. Pizarro to have violated his oath as a member of the Bar. It recommended his suspension from the practice of law for 3 months, subject to the approval of the members of the Board of Governors. The case was forwarded to the SC for final action.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Pizarro violated his solemn oath as a lawyer

HELD:

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.

Atty. Pizarro has utterly failed to substantiate his documented claim of having irrevocable rights and interests over the property which he could have conveyed to Po Cham. Atty. Pizarro must thus be faulted for fraudulently inducing Po Cham to purchase non-existent ―irrevocable rights, interest and participation‖ over an inalienable property.