Case Summary (A.C. No. 3806)
Administrative Proceedings Initiated
Following the receipt of the complaints, Atty. Baumann issued an Indorsement on February 12, 1992, which required Collado to submit her comment within five days. Collado, however, failed to respond. A subsequent notice on March 17, 1992, provided her an additional opportunity to reply within seventy-two hours, with a warning that failure to do so would be interpreted as a waiver of her right to be heard. Collado did not respond to these communications, but eventually submitted a comment in response to the disbarment complaint after a substantial delay.
Investigation Findings and Developments
As a result of the complaints, the Supreme Court acted on an "Urgent Ex Parte Motion" filed by De Jesus to prevent Collado from leaving the country, resulting in a hold-departure order on June 2, 1992. The Supreme Court then directed further investigation into Collado's actions, leading to a report by the Office of Administrative Services on September 7, 1992. This report documented that Collado had issued postdated checks for merchandise from De Jesus, payments for which were not honored due to insufficient funds or closed accounts despite multiple demands from De Jesus.
Complainant's Change of Position
On August 5, 1992, De Jesus submitted an affidavit of desistance indicating her withdrawal from pursuing the administrative and criminal complaints against Collado, as the latter had settled her debts by replacing the bounced checks with cash. Despite this, the criminal complaints for estafa or violations of B.P. Blg. 22 remained pending in court.
Admissions by Respondent
During the proceedings, Collado admitted to having purchased items on credit from De Jesus and acknowledged issuing postdated checks as requested by De Jesus to formalize her obligations. She attributed her failure to fulfill these obligations to non-remittance of payments by her customers. Moreover, Collado contended that her dealings with De Jesus were strictly private and unrelated to her official capacity within the Supreme Court or her status as a member of the Bar.
Legal Implications and Court's Stance
The court found that, irrespective of whether Collado was convicted of the hollow criminal charges, her admissions indicated a breach of B.P. Blg. 22 due to issuing checks without sufficient funds, which constitutes serious misconduct. The Court asserted that maintaining propriety and decorum is paramount for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 3806)
Case Overview
- Araceli S. De Jesus filed a sworn letter-complaint on February 3, 1992, against Atty. Consuelo Collado, who was a Court Attorney IV in the Supreme Court, citing the issuance of nine bouncing checks totaling P243,063.75.
- The complaint alleged that Collado's actions constituted conduct unbecoming of a public servant and a member of the Bar.
- A second complaint seeking disbarment was filed on March 10, 1992, escalating the matter.
Procedural Background
- The initial complaint was served to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Supreme Court, prompting an administrative investigation.
- Atty. Adelaida C. Baumann demanded a comment from Collado within five days, which she failed to provide.
- Subsequent reminders were sent, but Collado did not respond, effectively waiving her right to be heard in the civil service disciplinary proceeding.
Investigation Findings
- The investigation revealed that in late 1991, Collado had purchased merchandise from De Jesus and issued postdated checks as payment.
- While a few checks were honored, several were later dishonored due to insufficient funds and closed accounts.
- Des