Sanchez vs. Somoso

A lawyer who issues checks drawn on a closed bank account to satisfy personal obligations and thereafter refuses to make good despite demand is guilty of misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law, as such conduct violates Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold honesty and integrity both in the practice of law and in their private dealings.

Dr. Raul C. Sanchez, a member of the medical staff of Sta. Lucia General Hospital, was the attending physician of Atty. Salustino Somoso during the latter's confinement at the hospital from 31 March to 09 April 1998. The administrative complaint for disbarment was filed by Dr. Sanchez before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, seeking to have the respondent declared unfit for membership in the bar on account of conduct arising from the issuance of dishonored checks in payment of medical bills.

Atty. Salustino Somoso was confined at Sta. Lucia General Hospital from 31 March to 09 April 1998, under the care of Dr. Raul C. Sanchez, a member of the hospital's medical staff. Upon his discharge on 09 April 1998, respondent represented to complainant that, because it was a public holiday and banks were closed, complainant should accept a check in payment of the hospital bills due him, which totalled P44,347.00. Complainant was initially apprehensive about accepting a check, but respondent prevailed upon him by invoking his status as a lawyer who could be trusted as such. Persuaded by this assurance, complainant accepted two personal checks from respondent: Metrobank (Lagro Branch) Check No. 2620115754, dated 04/14/98, in the amount of P22,347.00, and Metrobank (Lagro Branch) Check No. 2620115755, dated 04/16/98, in the amount of P22,000.00.

When the checks were deposited, they were dishonored. Complainant immediately met with respondent and informed him of the dishonor. Respondent promised to redeem the dishonored checks in cash, but he never did. Complainant thereafter filed a criminal complaint for estafa against respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On 15 August 2001, the City Prosecutor issued a resolution finding that the necessary Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 should be filed, and two Informations were accordingly filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A warrant for respondent's arrest was issued, but respondent was able to evade arrest.

Complainant also filed an administrative complaint before the IBP-CBD, submitting that respondent was a disgrace to the law profession, unfit to be a member of the bar, and should be disbarred with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. Pursuant to the IBP-CBD order of 31 July 2002, respondent was furnished a copy of the complaint and directed to submit his answer within fifteen days. Despite receipt of the order at both of his given addresses, respondent failed to file any answer and was declared in default. The IBP-CBD thereafter found sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the charges and recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months, a recommendation adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XV-2003-177, dated 26 April 2003.

• Unfitness for the Bar: Complainant submitted that respondent's act of issuing dishonored checks drawn on a closed account, and his persistent refusal to settle his obligation despite demand, rendered him a disgrace to the law profession and unfit to be a member of the bar.
• Disbarment Sought: Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

• Misconduct: Whether respondent's issuance of personal checks drawn on a closed bank account to pay his medical bills, and his subsequent refusal to settle the obligation despite demand, constitutes misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the IBP's recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months is proper.

• Misconduct: Yes. Respondent's conduct constituted a gross violation of the basic norm of integrity required of all members of the legal profession, specifically violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Appropriate Penalty: Yes. Suspension from the practice of law for six months was the appropriate sanction, with a warning that any further infraction would be dealt with most severely.

• Misconduct: The Court accepted the findings and recommendation of the IBP, finding that respondent's act of issuing personal checks in payment of his medical bills, knowing fully well that his account with the drawee bank had already been closed, constituted a gross violation of the basic norm of integrity required of all members of the legal profession. The Code of Professional Responsibility, through Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal processes, and shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 further require that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and 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 profession, whether in public or private life. The canons emphasize that the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer extends not only to the practice of law but also to his personal dealings, and that a lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, his behavior beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.

• Appropriate Penalty: By paying his physician with a personal check drawn on a bank account he knew had already been closed, and by persistently refusing to settle his due obligation despite demand, respondent exhibited an extremely low regard for the commitment embodied in the oath he took upon joining the bar, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession he should instead hold in high esteem. Such conduct deserved nothing less than a severe disciplinary sanction. The Court found the IBP's recommended penalty of six months' suspension to be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and accordingly imposed it with a warning that any further infraction would be dealt with most severely.

• Personal Conduct of Lawyers — The high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer applies not only in the practice of the legal profession but also in his personal dealings. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by holding that respondent's issuance of checks drawn on a closed account to pay his physician, and his refusal to settle despite demand, constituted misconduct in his private capacity that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, warranting suspension.

• Privilege to Practice Law — The law profession is a noble calling, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent and fit to exercise it. The Court relied on this principle to underscore that respondent's conduct demonstrated unfitness, justifying the disciplinary sanction of suspension.

• "Clearly, respondent's action of issuing his personal checks in payment for his medical bills, knowing fully well that his account with the drawee bank has by then already been closed, constitutes a gross violation of the basic norm of integrity required of all members of the legal profession." — This passage states the ratio decidendi, identifying the specific conduct that the Court found to be the gravamen of the misconduct.

• "The canons emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer not only in the practice of the legal profession but also in his personal dealings as well. A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the standard governing lawyers' personal conduct, frequently cited in subsequent legal ethics jurisprudence.

• "When respondent paid, with a personal check from a bank account which he knew had already been closed, the person who attended to his medical needs and persisted in refusing to settle his due obligation despite demand, respondent exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment to the oath he has taken when he joined his peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession he should, instead, hold in high esteem." — This passage connects the factual findings to the ethical violation, explaining why the misconduct warranted severe disciplinary sanction.

• De Ere vs. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617 — Cited as support for the proposition that a lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety and that his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.

• Resurreccion vs. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129 — Cited as support for the principle that the law profession is a noble calling and that the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent and fit to exercise it.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to hold that respondent's issuance of checks on a closed account constituted a violation of this canon.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to characterize respondent's issuance of worthless checks and refusal to settle as dishonest and deceitful conduct.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — 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. Applied to hold that respondent's conduct tarnished the image of the profession.

• Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides 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. Applied to hold that respondent's private dealings in issuing dishonored checks adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law and discredited the profession.

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.