Ong vs. Delos Santos

A lawyer who issues a worthless check, even in a private or non-professional transaction, is administratively liable for gross misconduct under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as the act constitutes a breach of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

Complainant Benjamin Ong and respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos were introduced to each other in January 2008 by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After several calls and personal interactions, they became friends. The administrative complaint before the Supreme Court arose from a disbarment complaint filed by Ong before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), docketed as CBD Case No. 11-2985, after a separate criminal complaint for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 had also been brought against the respondent. The case required the Court to determine whether a lawyer's issuance of a worthless check in a private transaction constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility warranting administrative sanction.

In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After several calls and personal interactions, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends. According to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos later asked him to encash a postdated check, representing that he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos spoke of his lucrative practice and good paying clients. Convinced of the respondent's financial stability, Ong handed Atty. Delos Santos ₱100,000.00 on January 29, 2008, in exchange for the latter's Metrobank Check No. 0110268, postdated February 29, 2008.

When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored because the account had been closed. Ong relayed the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos and demanded immediate payment, but the latter ignored him. With collection efforts proving futile, Ong filed a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong likewise filed a disbarment complaint against the respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, docketed as CBD Case No. 11-2985.

Before the IBP, Atty. Delos Santos did not file an answer despite notice and did not present contrary evidence. The IBP Bar Commissioner found that Ong had sufficiently established the existence of the dishonored check. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted the Commissioner's findings and recommended suspension for three years plus return of ₱100,000.00 with legal interest. Before the Supreme Court, two mitigating circumstances were noted: the criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 had already been dismissed, and Atty. Delos Santos had already repaid the full amount of ₱100,000.00 to Ong.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Delos Santos's issuance of a worthless check violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the IBP Board of Governors' recommended penalty of three years' suspension was appropriate.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. The issuance of a worthless check by a lawyer, even in a private dealing, constitutes gross misconduct that violates the Lawyer's Oath and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Propriety of Penalty: No, the three-year suspension was excessive. The penalty was reduced to six months' suspension in light of mitigating circumstances, pursuant to the ruling in Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Carandang.

• Administrative Liability: Every lawyer is an officer of the court bound to maintain good moral character as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar. The Court demands that lawyers remain competent, honorable, and reliable individuals in whom the public may repose confidence. Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was enacted to safeguard the banking system and legitimate checking account users; its gravamen, as articulated in Lozano vs. Martinez, is the act of making and issuing a worthless check and putting it into circulation, deemed a public nuisance and a crime against public order. As a lawyer, Atty. Delos Santos was presumed to know the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the law being penal in character. His knowing issuance of an unfunded check violated the statute and exhibited indifference to the pernicious effect of his act on public interest and public order. This swept aside his Lawyer's Oath to support the Constitution and obey the laws, and disregarded the express commands of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct) and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 (prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law). The fact that the transaction was private did not matter: a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in the profession but also for misconduct committed outside professional capacity. Ong's own testimony confirmed that he lent the money precisely because of his reliance on the nobility of the legal profession and his expectation that a lawyer would uphold and know the law. Atty. Delos Santos's assurance of good financial standing, when the contrary was true, manifested intent to mislead Ong, eroding public faith in the legal profession as a whole.

• Propriety of Penalty: The IBP Board of Governors recommended suspension for three years. The Court found this penalty harsh given two mitigating circumstances: the criminal complaint charging Atty. Delos Santos with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 had already been dismissed, and he had already repaid the full amount of ₱100,000.00 to Ong. Treating both as mitigating circumstances in his favor, the Court reduced the penalty to six months' suspension, in accordance with the ruling in Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Carandang.

• Lawyer's Moral Character as Continuing Requirement — Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law but a continuing imposition for maintaining membership in the Philippine Bar. Any gross misconduct that puts a lawyer's moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in practice. The Court applied this by holding that Atty. Delos Santos's issuance of a worthless check constituted gross misconduct that placed his moral character in serious doubt.

• Disciplinary Authority Over Private Conduct — A lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in the profession but also for any misconduct committed outside of professional capacity, if such conduct renders the lawyer unfit to continue as an officer of the court. The Court applied this by rejecting any distinction between professional and private dealings, holding that Atty. Delos Santos's private transaction with Ong nonetheless fell within the ambit of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Gravamen of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — The gravamen of the offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any check dishonored upon presentment, and putting it in circulation. The law is designed to prohibit and eliminate the practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds or no credit, as it is deemed a public nuisance and a crime against public order. The Court relied on this characterization to underscore the public injury caused by Atty. Delos Santos's act and to justify administrative liability.

• "A lawyer's issuance of a worthless check renders him in breach of his oath to obey the laws. To accord with the canon of professional responsibility that requires him to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes, he thereby becomes administratively liable for gross misconduct." — This is the opening pronouncement of the decision, stating the core ratio decidendi that links the issuance of a worthless check to administrative liability for gross misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• "The effects of the issuance of a worthless check 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." — This passage, quoted from Lozano vs. Martinez, articulates the public-nuisance rationale underlying Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and explains why a lawyer's issuance of a worthless check implicates public interest beyond the private transaction.

• "That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His being a lawyer invested him – whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity – with the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with others." — This passage establishes the principle that a lawyer's ethical obligations extend to private, non-professional dealings, and that the Code of Professional Responsibility is not limited to professional conduct.

• Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, 18 December 1986, 146 SCRA 323 — Controlling authority on the nature and purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court relied on this case to define the gravamen of the offense and to articulate the public interest rationale for penalizing the issuance of worthless checks.

• Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Carandang, A.C. No. 5700, January 30, 2006, 480 SCRA 512 — Followed as the basis for reducing the penalty. The Court cited this case to justify the reduction of the IBP's recommended three-year suspension to six months, and to support the principle that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct outside professional capacity.

• Agno vs. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 1 — Followed for the principle that the canons requiring honesty and fairness apply not only in the practice of law but in personal dealings as well, and that lawyers must conduct themselves with great propriety and behavior beyond reproach at all times.

• Santos-Tan vs. Robiso, A.C. No. 6383, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 556 — Cited for the proposition that a lawyer is presumed to know the objectives and coverage of penal laws, and that knowingly issuing an unfunded check exhibits indifference to the pernicious effect on public interest and public order.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 1 provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found that Atty. Delos Santos violated both provisions by knowingly issuing a worthless check, which is an unlawful and deceitful act.

• Canon 7, Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Canon 7 provides that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession, whether in public or private life. The Court found that Atty. Delos Santos's issuance of a worthless check adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and discredited the legal profession.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 — The Bouncing Checks Law, enacted to safeguard the interest of the banking system and legitimate public checking account users. The Court used the law's penal character and public-interest purpose to establish that Atty. Delos Santos, as a lawyer presumed to know the law, knowingly violated it and thereby breached his oath to obey the laws.

Carpio (Acting Chief Justice), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concurred. Sereno, C.J., was on leave.