Case Summary (A.C. No. 3360)
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
Four informations were filed: one estafa charge and three counts under BP Blg. 22. The trial court acquitted on estafa but convicted on all BP Blg. 22 counts, imposing fines (P6,000 each for the first two checks; P16,000 for the third), subsidiary imprisonment upon insolvency, indemnities matching the face values of the checks, and costs.
Appellate Ruling and Suspension Order
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and, invoking Rules of Court 138 §§27–29, suspended respondent from legal practice for committing crimes involving moral turpitude and forwarded the decision to the Supreme Court.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
Respondent attempted appeal via “Notice of Appeal” rather than a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, §1. The Supreme Court declared the appellate decision final and executory on May 31, 1989, due to loss of the proper review period.
Motion to Lift Suspension and Respondent’s Argument
In her July 1989 motion, respondent argued that suspension aggravated the lower court’s fine, insisting she acted in good faith, lacking intent to harm Ms. Marquez. She claimed no violation of her professional oath.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis on Suspension
The Court found the offense under BP Blg. 22 involved moral turpitude and adversely affects public interest and order. Citing Lozano v. Martinez, it emphasized that issuing worthless checks injures the community, not solely private parties.
Pertinent Provisions of the Rules of Court
Rule 138, §27 authorizes suspension for deceit, malpractice, crimes involving moral turpitude, or violation of the attorney’s oath. Section 28 permits the Court of Appeals to suspend, subject to Supreme Court action. Conviction for BP Blg. 22 also demonstrates deceit and breach of the duty to obey laws.
Moral Character Requirement for Legal Practitioners
Under Melendrez v. Decena, an attorney must maintain good moral character
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 3360)
Citation
- 260 Phil. 572 (1990), En Banc
- Administrative Case No. 3360
- Promulgated January 30, 1990
Factual Background
- On December 17, 1983, respondent received from Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry valued at ₱36,000.00 on a commission‐sale basis.
- Condition: turn over sales proceeds and return unsold items to Marquez on or before February 14, 1984.
- By February 1984, approximately ₱26,250.00 worth of jewelry remained unsold.
- Instead of returning the unsold items, respondent issued three checks:
- Check dated February 16, 1984 for ₱5,400.00
- Check dated February 23, 1984 for ₱5,400.00
- Check dated February 25, 1984 for ₱15,450.00
- All three checks were dishonored by Traders Royal Bank for insufficiency of funds upon presentment within 90 days.
- Despite notice of dishonor, respondent made no arrangements with the bank and took no steps to settle her obligations to Marquez.
Procedural Posture
- Four informations filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila:
- Criminal Case No. 85-38358 for estafa (respondent acquitted)
- Criminal Cases Nos. 85-38359, 85-38360, and 85-38361 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (respondent convicted)
- Trial Court Decision (August 25, 1987):
- Acquitted on estafa charge
- Convicted on three counts of B.P. Blg. 22
- Sentenced to pay fines and indemnify Marquez:
- ₱6,000.00 fine + ₱5,400.00 indemnity (Crim. Case No. 85-38359)
- ₱6,000.00 fine + ₱5,400.00 indemnity (Crim. Case No. 85-38360)
- ₱16,000.00 fine + ₱15,450.00 indemnity (Crim. Case No. 85-38361)
- Subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvenc