A.C. No. 8172 - Nulada vs. Paulma

Case Summary (A.C. No. 8172)

Factual Background

Alex Nulada alleged that on September 30, 2005 Atty. Orlando S. Paulma issued him a check for P650,000.00 as payment of a debt. The complainant accepted the check because of respondent’s standing as a respected community member and his position as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Respondent failed to make good the amount despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands.

Criminal Proceedings

Complainant filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Iloilo, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-637. The Provincial Prosecutor recommended the filing of the appropriate information, which was docketed in the Municipal Trial Court of Miagao as Criminal Case No. 2604. The MTC, in its Decision dated October 30, 2008, found respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and ordered: a fine of P150,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment; payment of P650,000.00 with interest at twelve percent per annum computed from the filing of the complaint; filing fees of P10,000.00; and attorney’s fees of P20,000.00 plus appearance fees of P1,500.00 per hearing. Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Guimbal, Iloilo, Branch 67, docketed as Criminal Case No. 346. The RTC affirmed the MTC on March 13, 2009. The RTC decision became final and executory on April 16, 2009. An attempted elevation to the Court of Appeals failed by denials of motions for extensions and the CA resolution became final and executory October 2, 2010.

Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Defense

Prior to finality of the RTC decision, a verified administrative complaint dated January 7, 2009 and filed February 12, 2009 was filed by Alex Nulada before the Supreme Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant. In his counter-affidavit, Atty. Orlando S. Paulma denied committing dishonesty. He claimed that before September 30, 2005 he informed the complainant that there were insufficient funds to cover the check. He asserted that he issued the check to accommodate a friend who obtained a loan in the friend’s favor, that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds, and that the friend’s subsequent death left him without means to pay. He further alleged that the complainant threatened him and used the unfunded check to the complainant’s personal advantage.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The Supreme Court referred the administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation in its Resolution dated November 14, 2011. After mandatory conferences, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP issued a Report and Recommendation dated June 26, 2013 recommending suspension of respondent for six months for violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude. The IBP’s Report observed that the offense for which respondent was convicted involved moral turpitude and that respondent’s conduct showed unfitness to protect the administration of justice and lack of good moral character. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted and modified the CBD recommendation on October 10, 2014 and resolved to suspend respondent from the practice of law for two years.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Court was whether Atty. Orlando S. Paulma should be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Court sustained the findings and conclusions of the IBP CBD, as adopted and modified by the IBP Board of Governors. The Court cited Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court as ground for discipline, which authorizes disbarment or suspension for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or violation of the oath. The Court reiterated that Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law, and that Rule 1.01 proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct by a lawyer. By taking the lawyer’s oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and may be disciplined for conduct, professional or private, that renders him unfit to continue as an officer of the court.

The Court relied on its prior treatment of offenses under BP 22, notably Enriquez v. De Vera, which explained that the gravamen of BP 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check or a check dishonored upon presentment and putting it in circulation, that the statute guards the banking system and legitimate check users, and that issuance of unfunded checks constitutes a public nuisance and a

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 8172)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant Alex Nulada filed a verified administrative complaint for disbarment alleging dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma faced the administrative charge arising from the issuance of an unfunded check.
The administrative complaint was filed with the Court through the Office of the Bar Confidant on February 12, 2009.
The Court referred the matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation by Resolution dated November 14, 2011.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2013 recommending suspension for six months.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and modified the IBP recommendation on October 10, 2014 and recommended suspension for two years.
The Supreme Court rendered a Resolution on April 12, 2016 suspending respondent from the practice of law for two years effective upon receipt.

Key Factual Allegations

On September 30, 2005, respondent issued a check in the amount of P650,000.00 to complainant as payment for a debt.
Complainant accepted the check without question because respondent held a respected position as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Miagao, Province of Iloilo.
The check was dishonored upon presentment due to insufficient funds.
Respondent failed to make good the amount of the check despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands.
Complainant alleged that respondent threatened him and used the unfunded check to complainant's disadvantage.

Criminal Proceedings

Complainant filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, Iloilo, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-637.
The Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution dated May 26, 2006 recommending the filing of an information before the Municipal Trial Court of Miagao.
The Municipal Trial Court, in Criminal Case No. 2604, rendered a Decision dated October 30, 2008 finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22 and imposing a fine of P150,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment, and civil and other monetary liabilities including P650,000.00 with interest at twelve percent per annum from filing.
The Regional Trial Court of Guimbal, in Criminal Case No. 346, affirmed the MTC Decision in a judgment dated March 13, 2009, which became final and executory on April 16, 2009.
Respondent sought extensions to file a petition before the Court of Appeals, but the CA denied the motions and its resolution became final and executory on October 2, 2010.

Respondent's Defense

Respondent denied committing dishonesty and averred that he informed complainant prior to September 30, 2005 that funds were insufficient to cover the check.
Respondent claimed he issued the check to accommodate a friend in whose favor he had obtained the loan and that he personally did not benefit from the proceeds.
Respondent asserted that his frien