Case Summary (G.R. No. 182819)
Key Dates
• July 28, 2006 – Loan of ₱500,000 extended by Ms. Sosa to Atty. Mendoza, interest set at ₱25,000, due September 25, 2006.
• October 2006 – Postdated check for ₱500,000 dishonored for “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.”
• January 11, 2010 – Demand letter sent by Atty. Cabrera on behalf of Ms. Sosa; respondent failed to reply.
• October 22, 2010 – Complaint for disbarment/suspension filed with the Supreme Court.
• April 18, 2012 – Supreme Court resolution referring the case to the IBP for investigation.
• August 16, 2012 – Mandatory conference before IBP Investigating Commissioner; respondent appeared late.
• May 11, 2013 – IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Mendoza for six months and to order repayment with legal interest.
• December 10, 2013 – IBP Director for Bar Discipline transmitted resolution and records to the Supreme Court.
• March 23, 2015 – Supreme Court decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution as the controlling charter.
• Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
• Jurisprudence on gross misconduct and disciplinary sanctions (e.g., Yuhico v. Atty. Gutierrez).
Factual Background
Ms. Sosa extended a loan of ₱500,000 to Atty. Mendoza evidenced by a promissory note and postdated check. The parties agreed on a ₱25,000 interest and a 10% monthly penalty for default. Atty. Mendoza failed to pay by the due date; upon demand he requested postponement of the check deposit, promising eventual payment. When Ms. Sosa deposited the check in October 2006, it was dishonored for insufficient funds. Subsequent demands, including a formal letter by Atty. Ernesto V. Cabrera in January 2010, went unanswered.
Procedural History
Upon filing of the disbarment/suspension complaint in October 2010, the Supreme Court required respondent’s comment. Atty. Mendoza sought and obtained extensions, ultimately filing a brief in January 2012, wherein he admitted the loan’s validity but contested the full amount, claiming he received only ₱100,000—an assertion unsupported by evidence. In April 2012, the matter was referred to the IBP for fact-finding. At the IBP hearing in August 2012, respondent admitted validity of the obligation, presence of ₱600,000 in hand, and an obligation to pay, but failed to settle.
IBP Findings and Recommendation
The Investigating Commissioner concluded that Atty. Mendoza was liable for gross misconduct, both administratively and civilly, finding his failure to pay a just debt willful and deceitful. The IBP Board of Governors, in a May 11, 2013 resolution, suspended respondent from practice for six months and ordered him to return ₱500,000 with legal interest.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Court affirmed that under Rule 1.01 and settled jurisprudence, deliberate nonpayment of a just debt constitutes gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action regardless
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182819)
Procedural History
- October 22, 2010: Ms. Antonina S. Sosa filed a complaint for disbarment/suspension of Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (non-payment of debt).
- April 18, 2012: The Supreme Court, via Resolution, referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- May 11, 2013: The IBP Board of Governors adopted (with modification) the Investigating Commissioner’s report, suspending Atty. Mendoza for six months and ordering repayment of the debt with legal interest.
- December 10, 2013: The IBP Director for Bar Discipline transmitted the IBP Resolution and case records to the Supreme Court.
- January 10, 2011: The Supreme Court required Atty. Mendoza to file a comment; he requested and was granted extensions, ultimately filing his brief comment on January 10, 2012.
Factual Background
- July 28, 2006: Ms. Sosa loaned Atty. Mendoza ₱500,000 at ₱25,000 interest, payable by September 25, 2006, with a 10% monthly penalty on default.
- Mendoza executed a promissory note and issued a postdated check for ₱500,000 as security.
- Upon maturity, Mendoza defaulted and requested deferment of the check deposit; when finally deposited in October 2006, it was dishonored for “drawn against insufficient funds.”
- January 11, 2010: Ms. Sosa’s counsel, Atty. Ernesto V. Cabrera, sent a demand letter for payment, which Mendoza received but ignored.
- Mendoza never communicated any reason for non-payment nor settled the obligation.
Proceedings before the IBP
- July 4, 2012: Investigating Commissioner issued notice of mandatory conference/hearing scheduled August 16, 2012.
- At the hearing, only Ms. Sosa’s counsel appeared; the mandatory conference was terminated after marking documentary exhibits.
- Parties were directed to submit verified position papers, exhibits, and affidavits within