Case Summary (G.R. No. 195636)
Factual Background
During the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1346 to 96-1353 for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Sergio Natividad, Respondent tendered to Complainant a personal check (Check No. 0023638) in the amount of P144,768.00 drawn on her Philippine National Bank account as settlement of the civil aspect of the case. Complainant initially refused the check but accepted it after Respondent assured him that the check would be paid upon presentment and represented that, as a lawyer, she would not issue an unfunded check.
Effect on the Criminal Case
Relying on the check and the assurance, Complainant desisted from participating as a complaining witness. That withdrawal contributed to the dismissal of the criminal case and the subsequent release of the accused, Sergio Natividad. When Complainant later deposited the check, the drawee bank returned it unpaid with the notation “Account Closed.”
Demand, Prosecution, and Administrative Complaint
After the check was dishonored, Complainant sent Respondent a demand letter dated June 19, 1997, seeking payment of the check’s face value. Respondent ignored the demand. Complainant then filed a criminal complaint against Respondent for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, docketed as I.S. No. 97-1036 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina. The Marikina City Prosecutor filed information for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Respondent on September 22, 1997. Separately, Complainant filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Respondent on November 10, 1997, alleging deceit and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.
Attempts to Serve and Referral to IBP-CBD
A resolution dated February 2, 1998 required Respondent to comment on the administrative complaint within ten days, but the notice sent to her then-address was returned with the notation “Moved.” The Assistant National Secretary of the IBP furnished a later address in Pasig City. A June 20, 2001 resolution requiring comment was served at that address but was returned unserved with the notation “Refused.” Because of the failure to obtain a response and personal appearance, the matter was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
IBP Investigation and Recommendation
Investigating Commissioner Florimond C. Rous, in a Report dated December 6, 2001, found Respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years. The IBP Board of Governors, by Resolution No. XV-2002-554 dated October 19, 2002, adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation.
The Parties’ Contentions
Complainant alleged that Respondent knowingly issued a check drawn on a closed account and induced him to withdraw his criminal complaint, thereby committing deceit and violating her oath. Respondent did not file any comment in the administrative proceedings and failed to respond to attempted service, offering no defense in the investigative record before the IBP.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning
The Court concurred fully with the IBP findings. The record showed that Respondent prevailed upon Complainant to accept her personal check as settlement for her client’s civil liability, assuring him of sufficient funds. The check was drawn against a closed account and was dishonored. The Court found that this conduct deceived Complainant into withdrawing his complaint, directly causing prejudice to the administration of justice by leading to dismissal and release of the accused. The Court held that the issuance of a bouncing check under these circumstances constituted deceit and a breach of the fiduciary trust and duty expected of a lawyer.
Doctrinal Basis for Discipline
The Court cited Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court, which provides that an attorney may be suspended or disbarred for “any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office” and for “any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice.” The Court reiterated established precedents that a lawyer’s moral character is a condition precedent to the practice of law and that gross misconduct or loss of moral character warrants suspension or disbarment. The Court also relied on Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, emphasizing that a lawyer shall “uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for legal processes,” and found Respondent’s conduct inconsistent with that duty.
Aggravating Conduct and Contumacious Failure to Participate
The Court stressed that Respondent’s deliberate refusal to accept service of notices demonstrated a willful and contumacious disposition that compounded the original misconduct. The Court ch
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195636)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- EMILIO GRANDE was the private offended party in Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1346 to 96-1353 before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 273.
- ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA was counsel for the accused in the criminal cases styled People of the Philippines v. Sergio Natividad.
- EMILIO GRANDE filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA on November 10, 1997.
- The complaint was investigated by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline and recommended for suspension, and the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation on October 19, 2002.
- The Supreme Court acted on the IBP recommendation and rendered the decision under review.
Key Factual Allegations
- ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA tendered Check No. 0023638 in the amount of P144,768.00 drawn on her Philippine National Bank account as settlement for the civil liability of her client.
- EMILIO GRANDE initially refused to accept the check but accepted it after the respondent assured him the check would be paid upon presentment.
- EMILIO GRANDE thereupon desisted from participating as complaining witness, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal cases and the release of the accused, Sergio Natividad.
- The deposited check was returned unpaid by the drawee bank with the reason stamped “Account Closed.”
- EMILIO GRANDE sent a demand letter dated June 19, 1997, which went unanswered, and thereafter filed a criminal complaint and the administrative complaint for deceit and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
Investigative and Disciplinary Proceedings
- A resolution dated February 2, 1998, required ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA to comment within ten days but the notice was returned with the notation “Moved.”
- The IBP furnished another address and a June 20, 2001 resolution was served there, but the notice was returned with the notation “Refused.”
- The case was referred to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation, report and recommendation.
- Investigating Commissioner Florimond C. Rous issued a Report dated December 6, 2001, finding respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and recommending suspension for two years.
- The IBP Board of Governors adopted the investigating commissioner’s recommendation through Resolution No. XV-2002-554 dated October 19, 2002.
Issues Presented
- Whether the issuance of a personal check drawn against a closed account, furnished to induce the withdrawal of a criminal complaint, amounted to deceit and gross misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.
- Whether respondent’s failure to accept or to explain refusal of notices constituted contumacious conduct relevant to her moral fitness to practice law.
Contentions of the Parties
- EMILIO GRANDE conten