G.R. No. 206958 - Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang

Complainant Eugenia Mendoza, a mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, initiated the proceedings by filing a petition for the disbarment of Atty. Victor V. Deciembre.
Respondent, a lawyer involved in private financial transactions, was accused of engaging in fraudulent conduct by misusing blank postdated checks.

Complainant borrowed P20,000 from Rodela Loans, Inc. facilitated through respondent.
The loan was secured by 12 blank checks (including numbers 47253, 47256 to 47266) drawn against the Postal Bank.

Despite irregular repayment, the complainant made remittances (totaling P12,910.00 from November 11, 1998, to March 15, 1999) to respondent’s Metrobank account.
Respondent warned that, due to insufficient payment to cover penalties, interests, and other charges, he would fill up Check No. 47253—which the complainant subsequently honored by marking the check—to allow its encashment on March 30, 1999.
Further payments from April 13, 1999, to October 15, 1999, eventually resulted in a cumulative payment of P35,690.00.

Complainant alleged that respondent later filled up two of her blank checks (Nos. 47261 and 47262) with amounts of P50,000.00 each, supposedly in exchange for a P100,000 cash transaction on November 15, 1999.
She maintained that she neither borrowed nor received P100,000.00, arguing that her modest income made such a transaction highly unlikely.
Additionally, complainant asserted that respondent had engaged in similar unauthorized practices with other Postal Office employees.

Respondent claimed that his dealings with the complainant were carried out in his private capacity, not in his role as a lawyer, and that his subsequent filing of estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 complaints was an effort to vindicate his rights as a private citizen.
He argued that the various transactions were separate and that the complainant’s nonperformance regarding a supposed P100,000 arrangement (supported by checks dated January 15 and 20, 2000) was the real issue.
Respondent contended that the allegations regarding the filling up of blank checks were false, asserting that any blanks were already filled when the complainant had her signature affixed.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), where both parties submitted their position papers reiterating and contesting the allegations:

The complainant maintained that respondent persistently misused her blank checks to file unfounded criminal complaints, even after an earlier criminal case was dismissed.
Respondent defended his actions by alleging that the complainant had defaulted on her obligations.

An Investigating Commissioner (Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes) issued a Report on September 6, 2002, finding respondent guilty of dishonesty and recommending a one-year suspension.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report in their Resolution dated October 19, 2002, though a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration by the respondent was denied on jurisdictional grounds.
After remanding the case for a formal investigation (per the Supreme Court’s Second Division on June 9, 2003), Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa conducted hearings and submitted a Report on December 5, 2006. His findings were that:

The evidence favored the complainant’s version of events.
Respondent’s conduct showed a pattern of fraudulent practice and gross misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The report noted similarities with previous cases (Olbes and Acosta) where respondent was similarly accused of filling up blank checks without authorization.

The IBP Board of Governors, on May 31, 2007, modified the penalty recommended by Commissioner Funa and resolved to suspend respondent indefinitely, pending the lifting of such suspension.
Although the IBP resolution was considered recommendatory in nature, the entire record was elevated to the Supreme Court for appropriate disciplinary action.
Ultimately, after reviewing the misconduct and its implications on the integrity of the legal profession, the Supreme Court ruled for the more severe remedy of disbarment.

Whether Atty. Victor V. Deciembre committed acts amounting to fraud and gross misconduct by:

Filling up blank postdated checks without the complainant’s authority.
Using these checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against the complainant.

Whether the transactions alleged by the complainant, and the discrepancies in respondent's version (such as the disputed P100,000 loan), can be substantiated by the evidence.
Whether respondent’s conduct—irrespective of his argument that his actions were in a private capacity—violated the ethical standards expected of members of the legal profession.
Whether the evidence supports the imposition of a disciplinary sanction as severe as disbarment in view of the repeated misconduct and its impact on the reputation of the legal profession.