People v. Tuanda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 17, 1983, respondent Atty. Fe T. Tuanda received several pieces of jewelry worth P36,000.00 from Herminia A. Marquez for sale on a commission basis. The agreement stipulated that respondent would turn over the proceeds or return the unsold items by February 14, 1984. Instead of complying, respondent issued three checks in February 1984 totaling P26,250.00. Upon presentment, all three checks were dishonored by Traders Royal Bank due to insufficiency of funds. Despite receiving notice of dishonor, respondent failed to make arrangements to honor the checks or settle her debt. Procedural History: Respondent was charged with one count of Estafa and three counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC acquitted her of Estafa but convicted her of the BP 22 violations, imposing fines and indemnity. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction in toto and additionally ordered respondent's suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 138. Respondent attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court via a Notice of Appeal, but the Court noted it without action, ruling that the CA decision had become final and executory because the respondent failed to file a timely Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The Appeal: Respondent filed a 'Motion to Lift Order of Suspension' before the Supreme Court. She argued that the suspension was an excessively harsh penalty and claimed she was motivated by a sincere belief in her innocence and had no intention to cause damage to the complainant. She essentially sought the lifting of the disciplinary sanction on the ground that her acts did not constitute a violation of her attorney's oath.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals had the authority to suspend respondent from the practice of law. Whether a conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) involves moral turpitude and warrants disciplinary action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court Resolved to DENY the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law until further orders from the Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of Appeals acted within its legal mandate under Section 28, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This provision explicitly empowers the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance to suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes enumerated in Section 27, which includes conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The law dictates that once such a suspension is imposed, the attorney is prohibited from practicing their profession until the Supreme Court takes further action. The CA properly followed the procedural requirement of Section 29 by forwarding a copy of the decision to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the suspension was not an 'extra' penalty but a valid exercise of the CA's disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the Bar. The finality of the CA's criminal conviction also rendered the suspension order effective and enforceable. On Issue 2: Conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Citing Lozano v. Martinez, the Court emphasized that the gravamen of BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, which is an offense against public order rather than just a private wrong. The practice of putting valueless commercial papers into circulation pollutes the channels of trade, injures the banking system, and harms the public interest. Such conduct imports deceit and directly contradicts the attorney's oath to 'obey the laws of the land' and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Even if the issuance of the checks did not occur in the course of professional legal services, it reflects a lack of good moral character. Since the continued possession of good moral character is a condition precedent for remaining in the practice of law, the suspension is justified to protect the integrity of the legal profession.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, primarily the possession of good moral character. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, regardless of whether it relates to the exercise of the legal profession, justifies suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) is considered a crime involving moral turpitude because it deleteriously affects public interest and public order by polluting the channels of trade and commerce. The Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Courts possess the statutory authority to suspend a lawyer from practice upon conviction of such crimes, subject to the final action of the Supreme Court.