Nulada vs. Paulma

A lawyer's final conviction for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), which constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, violates the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.

Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Miagao, Iloilo, issued a check dated September 30, 2005 in the amount of P650,000.00 to Alex Nulada as payment for a personal debt. Nulada accepted the check based on Paulma's standing as a respected member of the community and public official. When presented for payment, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, Paulma failed to make good the amount, prompting Nulada to file a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22.

• On September 30, 2005, respondent Atty. Orlando S. Paulma issued a check in the amount of P650,000.00 to complainant Alex Nulada as payment for a personal debt.
• Complainant accepted the check without question due to respondent's standing as a respected member of the community and his position as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Miagao, Iloilo.
• When presented for payment, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
• Despite notice of dishonor and repeated demands, respondent failed to make good the amount of the check.
• Complainant filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, docketed as I.S. No. 2006-637.
• The Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution on May 26, 2006 recommending the filing of an information against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
• The information was filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. 2604.
• On October 30, 2008, the MTC rendered a Decision finding respondent guilty of violation of BP 22, ordering him to pay a fine of P150,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment, the amount of the check (P650,000.00) with interest at 12% per annum, filing fees, and attorney's fees.
• Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimbal, Iloilo, Branch 67, docketed as Criminal Case No. 346.
• On March 13, 2009, the RTC affirmed the MTC decision in toto.
• The RTC Decision became final and executory on April 16, 2009.
• Prior to the promulgation of the RTC Decision, on February 12, 2009, complainant filed the administrative complaint before the Supreme Court.
• In his defense, respondent claimed that he had informed complainant prior to September 30, 2005 that there were insufficient funds, and that he issued the check merely to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the loan, stressing that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds.
• Respondent also claimed that the friend had died and he had no means to pay, and that complainant threatened him and used the unfunded check to his personal advantage.

• Respondent issued a check for P650,000.00 which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and failed to make good the amount despite notice and repeated demands.
• Respondent was convicted by the MTC and RTC for violation of BP 22, a crime involving moral turpitude.
• Such conviction constitutes dishonesty and demonstrates respondent's lack of good moral character.
• Respondent violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, rendering him unfit to continue as a member of the bar.

• Denied committing dishonesty, claiming he informed complainant prior to September 30, 2005 that there were insufficient funds to cover the check.
• Asserted that he issued the check merely to accommodate a friend in whose favor he obtained the loan, and that he did not personally benefit from the proceeds.
• Claimed that the friend had died and he had no means by which to pay for the amount of the check.
• Alleged that complainant threatened him and used the unfunded check to the latter's personal advantage.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether respondent should be administratively disciplined for having been found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude (violation of BP 22).

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court sustained the findings and conclusions of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, as approved, adopted, and modified by the IBP Board of Governors.
  • Violation of BP 22 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude as it involves dishonesty and deceit in issuing worthless checks, which is contrary to the lawyer's oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
  • A lawyer's conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
  • The issuance of worthless checks indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed in him, shows lack of personal honesty and good moral character, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.
  • Citing precedents (Heenan v. Espejo, A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio, Dizon v. De Taza, and Wong v. Moya II), the Court imposed a uniform penalty of two (2) years suspension for similar violations.
  • Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of the Resolution, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

• Crime Involving Moral Turpitude — Defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general. Violation of BP 22 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude because it involves dishonesty and deceit in issuing worthless checks, contrary to the banking system's integrity and public order.
• Lawyer's Oath and Professional Responsibility — By taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. Lawyers can be disciplined for any conduct, in their professional or private capacity, which renders them unfit to continue as officers of the court.
• Privilege of Law Practice — Membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his actions whether acting in a public or private capacity, and any transgression erodes public faith in the legal profession.

• "A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude..."
• "[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds..."
• "Clearly, the issuance of worthless checks in violation of BP Blg. 22 indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence, and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action."
• "Membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions."

• Enriquez v. De Vera — Discussed the purpose and nature of violation of BP 22 in relation to administrative cases against lawyers; held that issuance of worthless checks knowingly violates BP 22 and exhibits indifference towards the pernicious effect of the illegal act on public interest and public order.
• Heenan v. Espejo — Precedent where respondent was suspended for two (2) years for issuing checks dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
• A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio — Precedent where two-year suspension was imposed for issuing worthless checks to pay off a loan.
• Dizon v. De Taza — Precedent where two-year suspension was meted for issuing bouncing checks, among other infractions.
• Wong v. Moya II — Precedent where two-year suspension was ordered for issuing worthless checks, failure to pay debts, and breach of client trust.
• Foronda v. Alvarez, Jr. — Cited for the principle that by taking the lawyer's oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an instrument for the orderly administration of justice.
• Manzano v. Soriano — Cited in relation to the lawyer's oath and the role of lawyers in the administration of justice.
• de Chavez-Bianco v. Lumasag, Jr. — Cited for the principle that lawyers can be disciplined for conduct in professional or private capacity rendering them unfit to be officers of the court.
• Ong v. Delos Santos — Cited regarding BP 22 and its implications for lawyers.
• Cuizon v. Macalino — Cited for the principle that issuance of worthless checks indicates unfitness for trust and confidence.

• Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or violation of the lawyer's oath.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) — "An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes," approved on April 3, 1979.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

• N/A (All participating justices concurred; Peralta, J. was on official leave).