Enriquez v. De Vera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Teresita B. Enriquez filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Trina De Vera for disbarment or suspension, alleging serious misconduct due to the issuance of worthless checks and non-payment of loans. Teresita claimed Atty. De Vera borrowed P500,000.00 with interest and another P100,000.00, issuing post-dated checks for these amounts. Upon presentment, the checks bounced for insufficient funds and were subsequently dishonored due to a closed account. Procedural History: The Quezon City Prosecutor's Office found probable cause for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) and estafa. An Information for estafa was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The administrative complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation, suspending Atty. De Vera for one year. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the IBP Board of Governors. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on whether Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of worthless checks.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct for issuing worthless checks. Whether Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable for violating her Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted and approved the recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors. Respondent Atty. Trina De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct for issuing worthless checks: The Court held that Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct. The issuance of worthless checks, which is punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, has been consistently considered by the Supreme Court as serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar. This is regardless of whether the checks were issued as payment for a loan or as a mere guaranty, as the law punishes the act of issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment. Atty. De Vera's defense that the checks were not meant for deposit and were merely for guaranty was not given credence due to lack of evidence and its contrariety to ordinary human experience. The Court emphasized that a lawyer is presumed to know the consequences of issuing unfunded checks, and such an act exhibits indifference to the pernicious effect of illegal acts on public interest and public order. By issuing worthless checks, Atty. De Vera violated BP 22, her Lawyer's Oath, and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On whether Atty. De Vera should be held administratively liable for violating her Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court affirmed that Atty. De Vera is administratively liable. Membership in the Bar demands a high degree of fidelity to the laws, whether in a private or professional capacity. The issuance of worthless checks violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03, which states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The Court reiterated that a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in their profession but also for gross misconduct outside of their professional capacity that shows unfitness to hold a license. Atty. De Vera's failure to settle her obligations and her issuance of dishonored checks demonstrated a breach of her oath and transgressed the ethical standards expected of lawyers, thus warranting disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of worthless checks, punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes serious misconduct for a lawyer, violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, regardless of whether the checks were intended as payment or as mere guaranty.