Title
Lehnert vs. Dino
Case
A.C. No. 12174
Decision Date
Aug 28, 2018
Atty. Diao suspended for 2 years after issuing dishonored checks and evading arrest; IBP investigation upheld by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 12174)

Background of the Complaint

The administrative complaint detailed that an Information was filed against Atty. DiAo in Branch 34 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Quezon City, charging him with two counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A warrant for his arrest was issued, but attempts by law enforcement to locate him at various places including Bulacan, Quezon City, San Lazaro, Sta. Cruz, and his office in Intramuros yielded no results. Lehnert argued that Atty. DiAo was deliberately evading arrest, thus justifying the call for his disbarment.

Proceedings Before the Commission on Bar Discipline

A Notice of Mandatory Conference was issued on March 4, 2016, directing both parties to submit briefs and appear before the Commission on Bar Discipline on April 29, 2016. However, Atty. DiAo failed to appear or submit any documentation in response. This absence led to an investigation, during which the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. DiAo guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically for issuing post-dated checks to Lehnert that were subsequently dishonored.

Findings of the Investigating Commissioner

Despite not being convicted of the criminal charges at that time, Atty. DiAo's actions, including his evasion of arrest and non-participation in the administrative proceedings, suggested a probable guilt. The Investigating Commissioner recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law, considering the severity of his misconduct and its implications for the legal profession.

Resolution by the Board of Governors

On July 17, 2017, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted the findings and recommended penalty, formally imposing a two-year suspension on Atty. DiAo. The Supreme Court endorsed these findings, emphasizing the importance of financial responsibility among lawyers, which is a crucial aspect of upholding their professional duties to their clients and the community.

Judicial Reasoning

The Supreme Court pointed to precedents where lawyers who display a cavalier attitude towards financial obligations are subject to penalties, including suspension. It reiterated that the issuance of worthless checks not only denotes gross mi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.