Grande v. De Silva
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emilio Grande was the private offended party in criminal cases for Estafa and Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22 against Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings, respondent Atty. Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, issued her personal Philippine National Bank (PNB) Check No. 0023638 in the amount of P144,768.00 to Grande as settlement for the civil aspect of the case. She assured Grande that the check was sufficiently funded and that as a lawyer, she would not issue a check that would bounce. Relying on these assurances, Grande accepted the check and desisted from the criminal case, leading to its dismissal. However, when Grande deposited the check, it was returned unpaid with the notation 'Account Closed.' Procedural History: Grande sent a demand letter to the respondent on June 19, 1997, which was ignored. He subsequently filed a criminal complaint for Estafa and Violation of BP 22, and on November 10, 1997, he filed the instant administrative complaint for disbarment. The Supreme Court required the respondent to comment, but notices were repeatedly returned unserved with notations 'Moved' or 'Refused.' The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), which found the respondent guilty of deceit and gross misconduct. The Petition: This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Emilio Grande against Atty. Evangeline de Silva for deceit and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. The complainant argues that the respondent's act of issuing a check against a closed account to induce the dismissal of a criminal case against her client constitutes a gross breach of trust and professional misconduct that renders her unfit to remain a member of the bar.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Evangeline de Silva is guilty of deceit and gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action for issuing a bouncing check. Whether the respondent's deliberate refusal to accept service of notices from the Court and the IBP constitutes contumacious conduct.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Two (2) Years, effective upon receipt hereof.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the respondent committed a breach of trust and deceit by issuing a check against a closed account. By assuring the complainant that the check was funded, she induced him to drop the criminal charges against her client, only for the check to be dishonored upon presentment. This act constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that a lawyer must possess good moral character not only as a condition for admission to the bar but also for the continued practice of law. Any wrongdoing indicating moral unfitness, whether professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. The issuance of a bouncing check is a serious offense that puts the lawyer's moral character in doubt and warrants a two-year suspension. On Issue 2: The Court found the respondent's deliberate refusal to accept notices served on her as evidence of a 'deplorably willful character.' Such conduct demonstrates a total lack of respect for authority and the legal processes she is sworn to uphold as a member of the bar. The Court characterized this as 'contumacious conduct' that merits no compassion from the judiciary. A lawyer's primary duty under Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for legal processes. Her defiance of simple directives from the Court and the IBP underscores a character flaw that renders her moral fitness to continue in the practice of law highly questionable.
Main Doctrine
The maintenance of good moral character is a condition precedent to the practice of law and must continue throughout a lawyer's career. Any conduct, whether professional or non-professional, that indicates moral unfitness—such as the issuance of a check against a closed account to deceive a party—constitutes gross misconduct and a violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Such acts warrant disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment, to protect the integrity of the legal profession and ensure that members of the bar conform to the highest standards of morality.