A.C. No. 5365 - Spouses Olbes vs. Deciembre

Complainants: Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes are government employees at the Central Post Office, Manila, where Franklin works as a letter carrier and Lourdes as a mail sorter.
Prior Transaction: The petitioners had previously contracted a loan of P10,000 from respondent, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, which was eventually paid with surcharges, penalties, and interest.

Loan Collateral: On July 1, 1999, Lourdes renewed her application for a P10,000 loan from Rodela Loans, Inc. and, as security, issued five Philippine National Bank (PNB) blank checks (Nos. 0046241–45).
Payment and Acknowledgment: On August 31, 1999, Lourdes paid a total of P14,874.37 corresponding to the loan plus additional charges, for which Atty. Deciembre issued a receipt acknowledging the payment.
Alteration of Checks: Despite the full payment, respondent filled out four (of the five) blank PNB checks (Nos. 0046241, 0046242, 0046243, and 0046244) with amounts of P50,000 each, assigning them various maturity dates (August 15, August 20, October 15, and November 15, 1999, respectively).

On October 19, 1999, respondent filed an affidavit-complaint before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal alleging that on July 15, 1999, petitioners had met him in Cainta, Rizal to exchange two postdated checks (totaling P100,000) for immediate cash.
On January 20, 2000, he filed another affidavit-complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City alleging a similar transaction (with the remaining two checks for another P100,000) on the same day but at a different location (Quezon City).

Petitioners denied ever transacting in Cainta or Quezon City on July 15, 1999, asserting that they were in their office during the entire period, a claim supported by their Daily Time Records.
They maintained that the checks were given as collateral for the loan and that respondent’s actions in filling them out were unauthorized and not agreed upon.

Initiation of the Disciplinary Case: A verified petition for the disbarment of Atty. Deciembre was filed by the petitioners with the Office of the Bar Confidant, alleging acts of dishonesty, falsification, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer.
IBP Investigation:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) referred the case to its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), which conducted several hearings, including the final one on May 12, 2003.
Both parties presented witnesses and documentary evidence, after which the case was deemed ready for resolution.

Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay rendered a Report and Recommendation on January 30, 2004, recommending a suspension of respondent from the practice of law for two years, in view of his violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation in Resolution No. XV-2003-177 dated July 30, 2004.

The respondent’s statements about the time and place of the alleged transactions (e.g., issuing checks in his office, at a client’s location in Pasig, at different times on July 15, 1999) were found to be inconsistent with his sworn affidavit-complaints filed with public prosecutors.
The discrepancies raised serious doubts regarding his credibility.

Evidence Favoring Petitioners: The petitioners’ version of events—including the proper use of the collateral checks as security for the P10,000 loan—was found more credible, particularly given their documented presence at the office and adherence to the previously established transaction.

Whether Atty. Victor V. Deciembre engaged in dishonest and unprofessional conduct by filling out blank checks with amounts that were not agreed upon, despite knowing that the loan they were meant to secure had already been paid.

Whether the inconsistencies in respondent’s testimony and his conflicting versions of the facts, especially concerning the time and location of the transactions, undermine his credibility as a lawyer.

Whether the filing of criminal complaints against petitioners—alleging estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa 22—was a bona fide effort to vindicate his rights or an abuse of his position aimed at punishing the petitioners.

Whether the gravity of respondent’s misconduct warrants a penalty more severe than the two-year suspension recommended by the IBP, given the impact on the reputation of the legal profession and the public’s trust.