Case Summary (A.C. No. 3360)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- Receipt of jewelry from complainant Herminia A. Marquez: 17 December 1983.
- Deadline to return unsold jewelry/sales proceeds: on or before 14 February 1984.
- Issuance of three checks by respondent: 16 February 1984 (P5,400.00), 23 February 1984 (P5,400.00), and 25 February 1984 (P15,450.00).
- Trial court decision: 25 August 1987 (acquittal on estafa; convictions for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 in three cases with fines and indemnities).
- Court of Appeals decision affirming convictions and imposing suspension from practice of law: 17 October 1988.
- Period for filing petition for review on certiorari expired: 16 December 1988 (Court of Appeals’ decision became final and executory).
- Supreme Court resolution on respondent’s Notice of Appeal: 31 May 1989 (noted without action and declared CA decision final).
- Supreme Court resolution denying motion to lift suspension: January 30, 1990 (decision uses the 1987 Constitution as governing law).
Facts
Respondent received several pieces of jewelry valued at P36,000.00 from Ms. Marquez for sale on commission with a stated condition to account for proceeds and return unsold items by 14 February 1984. By February 1984, unsold items amounted to approximately P26,250.00. Instead of returning the items or settling the account, respondent issued three checks totaling P26,250.00 which were presented within ninety days but dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. Respondent did not arrange with the bank or otherwise make efforts to honor the checks or to settle her obligations to Ms. Marquez after notice of dishonor.
Criminal Proceedings and Trial Court Disposition
Four informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila: one for estafa and three for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (bouncing checks). After trial, the RTC (25 August 1987) acquitted respondent of estafa but convicted her in the three B.P. Blg. 22 cases, imposing fines with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and ordering indemnification of the complainant in the specified amounts, as well as costs.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Suspension Order
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s convictions and, invoking Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, ordered that respondent, being a member of the Bar and having been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, be suspended from the practice of law “until further action from the Supreme Court.” The CA directed that a copy of its decision be forwarded to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 138 procedures.
Supreme Court Procedural Determination on Appealability
Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal (with the Court of Appeals and later with the Supreme Court) rather than a petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court within the reglementary period. The Supreme Court noted respondent’s procedural misstep and, in a resolution dated 31 May 1989, declared the Court of Appeals’ decision final and executory upon expiration of the period to file a petition for review on certiorari (16 December 1988). Thus, the CA decision became conclusive for purposes of the suspension imposed.
Respondent’s Motion to Lift Suspension and Claim
In her Motion to Lift Order of Suspension (12 July 1989), respondent argued that suspension from the practice of law is a harsh, aggravating penalty relative to the fines imposed by the trial court and maintained that her actions were motivated by a sincere belief in her innocence and lacked intent to cause damage to Ms. Marquez. The Court construed this claim as one contesting that respondent did not violate her oath or lack the requisite moral culpability when the checks bounced.
Legal Characterization of the Offense (B.P. Blg. 22) and Moral Turpitude
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s characterization of the offense as involving moral turpitude. The Court reiterated established jurisprudence (citing Lozano v. Martinez) that the gravamen of B.P. Blg. 22 is the issuance and circulation of worthless checks, an act punished not merely as a private wrong against property but as an offense against public order. The Court emphasized that the issuance of valueless commercial paper harms public interest by potentially polluting channels of commerce, injuring banking systems, and affecting societal welfare; hence, the offense carries deleterious effects beyond private parties.
Rule 138, Attorney Discipline, and Professional Implications
The Supreme Court applied Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court to the facts: Section 27 enumerates grounds for removal or suspension by the Supreme Court, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and violations of the attorney’s oath; Section 28 authorizes the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance to suspend an attorney for those same causes pending further action by the Supreme Court. The Court found that respondent’s convictions imported deceit and a violation of her oath and the Code of Professi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 3360)
Procedural Posture and Citation
- Citation: 260 Phil. 572 EN BANC, Administrative Case No. 3360, January 30, 1990.
- Nature of proceedings: Resolution by the Supreme Court on a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension filed by respondent Fe T. Tuanda, a member of the Philippine Bar, following a suspension imposed by the Court of Appeals.
- Prior relevant rulings:
- Trial Court (Regional Trial Court of Manila): Decision dated 25 August 1987 (criminal cases docketed 85-38358, 85-38359, 85-38360, 85-38361).
- Court of Appeals: Decision dated 17 October 1988 in C.A. - G.R. CR No. 05093, which affirmed the trial court's convictions under B.P. Blg. 22 and additionally ordered suspension from the practice of law, directing that a copy be forwarded to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 138.
- Court of Appeals Resolution dated 9 January 1989: Noted respondent’s Notice of Appeal and advised to address the Notice to the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court Resolution dated 31 May 1989: Noted without action respondent’s Notice of Appeal filed with the Supreme Court; declared the Court of Appeals decision final and executory upon expiration of period for filing a petition for review on certiorari on 16 December 1988.
Factual Background
- On 17 December 1983, respondent Fe T. Tuanda received from Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry, total stated value P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis.
- Condition agreed: respondent to turn over sales proceeds and return unsold items to Marquez on or before 14 February 1984.
- By February 1984, unsold pieces amounted to approximately P26,250.00.
- Instead of returning the unsold items or proceeds, respondent issued three checks:
- Check dated 16 February 1984 for P5,400.00;
- Check dated 23 February 1984 for P5,400.00;
- Check dated 25 February 1984 for P15,450.00.
- Upon presentment for payment within ninety (90) days after issuance, all three checks were dishonored by Traders Royal Bank for insufficiency of funds.
- After notice of dishonor, respondent made no arrangements with the bank concerning the dishonored checks and made no effort to settle obligations to Marquez.
Criminal Charges and Dockets
- Four informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila:
- One information for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 85-38358.
- Three informations for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 85-38359, 85-38360, and 85-38361.
Trial Court Ruling (25 August 1987)
- The trial court:
- Acquitted respondent of the charge of estafa (Criminal Case No. 85-38358).
- Convicted respondent of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in all three related cases (85-38359, 85-38360, 85-38361).
- Sentences imposed by the trial court:
- Criminal Case No. 85-38359: Fine of P6,000.00, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and indemnify complainant P5,400.00.
- Criminal Case No. 85-38360: Fine of P6,000.00, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and indemnify complainant P5,400.00.
- Criminal Case No. 85-38361: Fine of P16,000.00, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and indemnify complainant P15,450.00.
- Costs awarded in all three cases.
Court of Appeals Ruling (17 October 1988)
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision in its entirety.
- In addition to affirming convictions and penalties, the Court of Appeals ordered the suspension of respondent from the practice of law, stating:
- The offense involved moral turpitude.
- The respondent is “hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law and shall not practice her profession until further action from the Supreme Court, in accordance with Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.”
- The decision directed that a copy be forwarded to the Supreme Court as required by Section 29 of Rule 138.
Appeal and Finality of the Court of Appeals Decision
- Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals on 16 December 1988.
- The Court of Appeals, by Resolution dated 9 January 1989, advised respondent to address her Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court, the proper forum.
- Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court on 1 February 1989.
- Supreme Court Resolution dated 31 May 1989:
- Noted without action the Notice of Appeal filed with the Supreme Court.
- Declared