Lawyerly

AC. No. 10050

2013-12-03

VICTORIA C. HEENAN v. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO

VELASCO JR., J.

Atty. Espejo did not deny obtaining a loan from Victoria or traverse allegations that she issued unfunded checks to pay her obligation. It has already been settled that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned.[16] Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. In Tomlin II v. Moya II, We explained that the prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of a lawyer, thus:In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complaint but offered no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several demands, both verbal and written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce. Although he acknowledged his financial obligations to complainant, respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrong doing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross misconduct. Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a lawyer to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.[17]

AC. No. 7505

2008-10-24

WALTER WILKIE v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Lao v. Medel,[26] we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino[27] having been found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property the title of which was only entrusted to him by the complainant.

AC. No. 6972

2008-10-17

JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

In Lao v. Medel,[21] we ruled as follows:Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." In Co v. Bernardino, [ A.C. No. 3919, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 102] the Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as violation of this Rule and an act constituting gross misconduct.

AC. No. 6972

2008-10-17

JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

We come now to the penalty imposable in this case. In Co v. Bernardino[26] and Lao v. Medel[27] we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law.

AC. NO. 6707

2006-03-24

GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ

PER CURIAM

In a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct,[20] as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."[21]

AC. NO. 6971

2006-02-23

QUIRINO TOMLIN II v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.[20] Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.[21]

AC. NO. 5580

2005-06-15

SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. v. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS

PER CURIAM

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[12] It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.[13] Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession.[14]

AC. NO. 1109

2005-04-27

MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA

PER CURIAM

Indeed, in recent cases, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct,[18] as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public" since the circulation of valueless commercial papers "can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."[19]

AC-5365

2005-04-27

SPS. FRANKLIN v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

PANGANIBAN, J.

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[16] It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character.[17] "A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she] has sworn to be a fearless crusader."[18]

AC. NO. 1526

2005-01-31

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO

PER CURIAM

Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. We have been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[5] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[6] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[7] And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[8] Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.

AC. No. 5454

2004-11-23

CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

While the case of Nuñez v. Ricafort[37] holds some similarity to the present case, it is material to note that this is the first time that a complaint of this nature has been filed against the respondent. Likewise, unlike the Nuñez case, the criminal cases filed by the complainant have not been finally disposed of, hence, no conviction against respondent was ever obtained. On all fours to this case is the case of Lao v. Medel.[38] Respondent Atty. Robert W. Medel, who issued four checks which were subsequently dishonored totaling twenty-two thousand pesos (P22,000) in payment of his outstanding obligation, was ordered suspended for one year by this Court in line with the cases of Co. v. Bernardino,[39] Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr.,[40] and Saburnido v. Madroño.[41]

AC. No. 6408

2004-08-31

ISIDRA BARRIENTOS v. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.[18] Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[20] Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:CANON 1 -- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

AC. No. 4762

2004-06-28

LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO

PUNO, J.

It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. Medel,[21] that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyer's moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar.[22] He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.

AC. No. 4762

2004-06-28

LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO

PUNO, J.

It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. Medel,[21] that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyer's moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar.[22] He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.

AC. No. 4762

2004-06-28

LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO

PUNO, J.

Rule 7.03 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. Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who issued worthless checks - Lao v. Medel,[25] Co v. Bernardino,[26] and Ducat v. Villalon, Jr.,[27] - we find respondent's reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

AC. No. 5082

2004-02-17

MILAGROS N. ALDOVINO v. ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[11] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[12] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[13] And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[14] Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession.

AC. No. 5830

2004-01-26

MARY D. MALECDAN v. ATTY. PERCIVAL L. PEKAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."[27] A lawyer is expected, at all times, to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Whenever it is made to appear that a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the Court which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar to withdraw the privilege.[28]

	AC. No. 10050 2013-12-03	VICTORIA C. HEENAN v. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO VELASCO JR., J.
Atty. Espejo did not deny obtaining a loan from Victoria or traverse allegations that she issued unfunded checks to pay her obligation. It has already been settled that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned.[16] Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. In Tomlin II v. Moya II, We explained that the prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of a lawyer, thus:In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complaint but offered no justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several demands, both verbal and written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce. Although he acknowledged his financial obligations to complainant, respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrong doing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross misconduct. Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a lawyer to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.[17]
	AC. No. 7505 2008-10-24	WALTER WILKIE v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Lao v. Medel,[26] we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino[27] having been found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property the title of which was only entrusted to him by the complainant.
	AC. No. 6972 2008-10-17	JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Lao v. Medel,[21] we ruled as follows:Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the Bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." In Co v. Bernardino, [ A.C. No. 3919, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 102] the Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as violation of this Rule and an act constituting gross misconduct.
	AC. No. 6972 2008-10-17	JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We come now to the penalty imposable in this case. In Co v. Bernardino[26] and Lao v. Medel[27] we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law.
	AC. NO. 6707 2006-03-24	GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ PER CURIAM
In a recent case, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct,[20] as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."[21]
	AC. NO. 6971 2006-02-23	QUIRINO TOMLIN II v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.[20] Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.[21]
	AC. NO. 5580 2005-06-15	SAN JOSE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. v. ATTY. ROBERTO B. ROMANILLOS PER CURIAM
Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[12] It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.[13] Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession.[14]
	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
Indeed, in recent cases, we have held that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct,[18] as the effect "transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public" since the circulation of valueless commercial papers "can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. Thus, paraphrasing Black's definition, a drawer who issues an unfunded check deliberately reneges on his private duties he owes his fellow men or society in a manner contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty, justice, honesty or good morals."[19]
	AC-5365 2005-04-27	SPS. FRANKLIN v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE PANGANIBAN, J.
Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions.[16] It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character.[17] "A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she] has sworn to be a fearless crusader."[18]
	AC. NO. 1526 2005-01-31	NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO PER CURIAM
Undoubtedly, respondent's conduct has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful and grossly immoral acts. We have been exacting in our demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[5] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[6] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[7] And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[8] Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also the legal profession.
	AC. No. 5454 2004-11-23	CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the case of Nuñez v. Ricafort[37] holds some similarity to the present case, it is material to note that this is the first time that a complaint of this nature has been filed against the respondent. Likewise, unlike the Nuñez case, the criminal cases filed by the complainant have not been finally disposed of, hence, no conviction against respondent was ever obtained. On all fours to this case is the case of Lao v. Medel.[38] Respondent Atty. Robert W. Medel, who issued four checks which were subsequently dishonored totaling twenty-two thousand pesos (P22,000) in payment of his outstanding obligation, was ordered suspended for one year by this Court in line with the cases of Co. v. Bernardino,[39] Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr.,[40] and Saburnido v. Madroño.[41]
	AC. No. 6408 2004-08-31	ISIDRA BARRIENTOS v. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held that deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law.[18] Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[20] Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:CANON 1 -- A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
	AC. No. 4762 2004-06-28	LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO PUNO, J.
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. Medel,[21] that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyer's moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar.[22] He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.
	AC. No. 4762 2004-06-28	LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO PUNO, J.
It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks, seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. Medel,[21] that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyer's moral character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a member of the bar.[22] He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the respect for law.
	AC. No. 4762 2004-06-28	LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO PUNO, J.
Rule 7.03 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. Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who issued worthless checks - Lao v. Medel,[25] Co v. Bernardino,[26] and Ducat v. Villalon, Jr.,[27] - we find respondent's reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.
	AC. No. 5082 2004-02-17	MILAGROS N. ALDOVINO v. ATTY. PEDRO C. PUJALTE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[11] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[12] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[13] And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[14] Respondent, by his conduct, blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession.
	AC. No. 5830 2004-01-26	MARY D. MALECDAN v. ATTY. PERCIVAL L. PEKAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."[27] A lawyer is expected, at all times, to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Whenever it is made to appear that a lawyer is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the Court which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar to withdraw the privilege.[28]

SELWYN F. LAO v. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL