A.C. No. 3360 - People vs. Tuanda

On 17 December 1983, Herminia A. Marquez delivered jewelry valued at ₱36,000.00 to Atty. Fe T. Tuanda for sale on a commission basis.
The parties agreed that Tuanda would remit sales proceeds and return unsold items by 14 February 1984.

In February 1984, instead of returning unsold jewelry (approximate value ₱26,250.00), Tuanda issued three checks:

Upon presentment within 90 days, all three checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Tuanda received notice of dishonor but made no arrangements with the bank or Marquez to settle the obligations.

Four informations were filed in the RTC of Manila: one for estafa (Criminal Case No. 85-38358) and three for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Criminal Cases Nos. 85-38359 to 85-38361).
Trial court (25 August 1987) acquitted Tuanda of estafa but convicted her of B.P. Blg. 22 in all three cases, imposing fines (₱6,000.00 in two cases, ₱16,000.00 in one) with subsidiary imprisonment and ordering indemnification matching the dishonored amounts.

On appeal (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 05093), the CA affirmed the convictions and, citing moral turpitude, suspended Tuanda from the practice of law pending further Supreme Court action.
CA directed that a copy of its decision be forwarded to the Supreme Court under Rule 138, Sections 27–29.

Tuanda filed a Notice of Appeal with the CA (16 December 1988), which advised her to address her notice to the Supreme Court.
She filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court (1 February 1989), but the Court declared the CA decision final and executory on 31 May 1989 for failure to file a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
On 12 July 1989, Tuanda moved to lift the suspension, arguing that she lacked intent to harm Marquez and that suspension was a harsh penalty.

Whether the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals should be lifted.
Whether Tuanda’s conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude justifying suspension under the Rules of Court.