Sanchez v. Somoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dr. Raul C. Sanchez was the attending physician of respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso during the latter's confinement from March 31 to April 9, 1998. Upon discharge, respondent Somoso issued two personal checks totaling P44,347.00 to cover hospital bills, claiming banks were closed due to a public holiday. Complainant accepted the checks based on respondent's representation as a lawyer. Upon deposit, the checks were dishonored due to a closed account. Respondent promised to redeem the checks in cash but failed to do so. Procedural History: A criminal complaint for estafa was filed against respondent. The City Prosecutor recommended filing Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22). Two Informations for BP 22 were filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, and a warrant for respondent's arrest was issued, which he evaded. Complainant also filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD). Respondent failed to file an answer despite notice and was declared in default. The IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation. The Petition: Complainant submitted that respondent's actions were a disgrace to the legal profession and prayed for his disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso's act of issuing dishonored checks constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action. Whether respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso guilty of misconduct and ordered him suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning against further infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso's act of issuing dishonored checks constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action: The Court held that respondent's action of issuing personal checks in payment for his medical bills, knowing that his account with the drawee bank had already been closed, constitutes a gross violation of the basic norm of integrity required of all members of the legal profession. This conduct directly contravenes Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The issuance of checks known to be unfunded or drawn against a closed account is a dishonest act that undermines public trust. Such an act demonstrates an "extremely low regard to his commitment to the oath he has taken when he joined his peers," thereby seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with great propriety and their behavior should be beyond reproach at all times, not only in their professional dealings but also in their personal lives. The case of De Ere vs. Rubi was cited to underscore the high standard of honesty expected from lawyers. On Whether respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law: The Court affirmed that respondent's conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, as mandated by Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This rule states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Issuing worthless checks, especially in settlement of a debt for medical services, is a clear manifestation of dishonesty and deceit. Such behavior is inconsistent with the noble calling of the law profession, which requires competence and fitness. The privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon individuals who possess these qualities. The Court reiterated that a lawyer's conduct must be beyond reproach, and any act that brings discredit to the profession, even in personal dealings, is subject to disciplinary action. The issuance of dishonored checks, as in this case, is a conduct that clearly demonstrates a lack of the integrity and probity expected of a member of the Bar.
Main Doctrine
Issuing checks with knowledge of insufficient funds or closed account constitutes gross violation of the norm of integrity required of lawyers, warranting disciplinary sanction.