Case Summary (A.C. No. 10179)
Facts
Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became acquainted after an introduction by Sheriff Fernando Mercado. Respondent asked Ong to encash a postdated check because he purportedly needed cash, assuring Ong of his financial ability and good clients. Ong gave respondent P100,000.00 on January 29, 2008 in exchange for a Metrobank postdated check dated February 29, 2008. Upon presentment the check was dishonored because the account was closed. Respondent ignored Ong’s demand for payment. Ong filed a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of BP Blg. 22, and filed a disciplinary complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-2985.
IBP Bar Commissioner’s Findings and Recommendation
IBP Bar Commissioner Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr. found that Ong established the existence of the dishonored check and that respondent failed to file an answer or present contrary evidence. The Commissioner concluded respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Commissioner recommended suspension from the practice of law for two years and restitution of P100,000.00 to Ong, noting an earlier disbarment case against respondent (Lucman v. Atty. Delos Santos, CBD Case No. 09-253) as an aggravating consideration.
IBP Board of Governors’ Resolution
By Resolution No. XX-2013-253, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Commissioner’s report and recommendation. The Board found respondent violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 and resolved to suspend him from the practice of law for three years and to order restitution of P100,000.00 to the complainant with legal interest within thirty days from receipt of notice.
Issue Presented
Whether the issuance of the worthless (dishonored) postdated check by Atty. Delos Santos constituted a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby warranting administrative discipline.
Legal Standards and Applicable Law
- Constitution and Lawyer’s Oath: Under the 1987 Constitution and the Lawyer’s Oath, a lawyer must support the Constitution and obey the laws, and must promote respect for the law and legal processes. This constitutional and oath-based obligation undergirds professional discipline.
- Code of Professional Responsibility: Canon 1, Rule 1.01 proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct by lawyers. Canon 7, Rule 7.03 prohibits conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law and behavior that scandalizes the legal profession.
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: BP Blg. 22 penalizes issuance of worthless checks and seeks to protect the banking system and legitimate users of checking accounts. The law’s gravamen, as articulated in precedent, is the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment and putting it in circulation; such conduct is a public nuisance and injurious to public order because it undermines commercial reliability and the banking system (Lozano v. Martinez).
Court’s Reasoning on Misconduct
The Court affirmed that every lawyer is an officer of the court and must maintain continuous good moral character. Issuance of an unfunded check by a lawyer not only violates BP Blg. 22 but also breaches the Lawyer’s Oath and the cited canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent’s assurances about his financial standing and ensuing issuance of a check that was dishonored evidenced conduct that was dishonest and deceitful in a private dealing; however, a lawyer’s misconduct in private life remains disciplinable when it renders him unfit to be an officer of the court. The Court emphasized that such conduct harms public trust in the legal profession, noting that Ong relied on the respondent’s status as a lawyer in deciding to advance funds. Precedent underlining these principles includes Lozano v. Martinez (on the public harm of issuing worthless checks) and Agno v. Cagatan (on the heightened standard of integrity required of lawyers).
Mitigating Circumstances and Penalty Adjustment
The Court recognized mitigating circumstances: the criminal complaint for violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent had been dismissed, and respon
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10179)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 728 Phil. 332, En Banc; A.C. No. 10179 (Formerly CBD 11-2985), decided March 04, 2014.
- Disbarment/administrative complaint originating from Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) CBD Case No. 11-2985.
- Case arose from a complaint by Benjamin Q. Ong against Atty. William F. Delos Santos for issuance of a dishonored check and related misconduct.
- Matter reached the Supreme Court en banc after investigation by the IBP Bar Commissioner and action by the IBP Board of Governors.
Antecedent Facts and Transactional Background
- In January 2008, Complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to Respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila; subsequent calls and personal interactions developed into a friendship.
- Ong alleges that Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash a postdated check because he was in need of cash and reassured Ong by boasting about his lucrative practice and good-paying clients.
- On January 29, 2008, Ong handed Atty. Delos Santos P100,000.00 in exchange for Metrobank Check No. 0110268, postdated February 29, 2008.
- Upon presentment, the check was dishonored for the reason that the account was closed.
Efforts to Collect and Criminal Proceedings
- Ong informed Atty. Delos Santos of the dishonor and demanded immediate payment; the respondent allegedly ignored these demands.
- After collection efforts failed, Ong filed a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos.
- Ong also filed the disbarment/administrative complaint with the IBP, which docketed the matter as CBD Case No. 11-2985.
Findings and Recommendation of the IBP Bar Commissioner
- IBP Bar Commissioner Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr., in his Report, found that Ong had sufficiently established the existence of the dishonored check.
- The Commissioner noted that Atty. Delos Santos did not file an answer despite proper notice, nor did he present contrary evidence.
- The Commissioner recommended that Atty. Delos Santos be held liable for violations of:
- Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and
- Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The Commissioner recommended a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years and the return of P100,000.00 to the complainant, considering an earlier disbarment case against the respondent (Lucman v. Atty. Delos Santos, CBD Case No. 09-253).
IBP Board of Governors Resolution (No. XX-2013-253)
- On March 20, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XX-2013-253 adopting and approving the Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation.
- The IBP Board found the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and rules.
- The IBP Board resolved to suspend Atty. William F. Delos Santos from the practice of law for three (3) years and ordered him to return One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) with legal interest within thirty days from receipt of notice.
Issue Presented
- Whether by issuing the worthless check Atty. Delos Santos violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Legal Standards, Statutory and Canonical Provisions
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP Blg. 22) is enacted to safeguard banking interests and legitimate public checking account users; it penalizes issuance of worthless checks and seeks to prevent the practice of issuing checks without funds as a public nuisance that harms commerce and public order.
- Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.”
- Rule 1.01: “A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
- Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: “A LAWYER