Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 3919 January 28, 1998

SOCORRO T. CO, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO, respondent.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Socorro T. Co, a

businesswoman, against Atty. Godofredo N. Bernardino charging him with unprofessional and
unethical conduct indicating moral deficiency and unfitness to stay in the profession of law.

Socorro T. Co alleged that in October 1989, as she was following up the documents for her
shipment at the Bureau of Customs, she was approached by respondent, Atty. Godofredo N.
Bernardino, introducing himself as someone holding various positions in the Bureau of Customs
such as Executive Assistant at the NAIA, Hearing Officer at the Law Division, and OIC of the
Security Warehouse. Respondent offered to help complainant and promised to give her some
business at the Bureau. In no time, they became friends and a month after, or in November of the
same year, respondent succeeded in borrowing from complainant P120,000.00 with the promise
to pay the amount in full the following month, broadly hinting that he could use his influence at
the Bureau of Customs to assist her. To ensure payment of his obligation, respondent issued to
complainant several postdated Boston Bank checks: No. 092601 dated 1 December 1989 for
P21,950.00, No. 092602 dated 4 December 1989 for P6,750.00, No. 092615 dated 15 January 1990
for P65,000.00 and No. 092622 dated 15 January 1990 for P10,000.00 (Exhs. "A-3," "B," "C,"
"D," respectively). Respondent also issued a postdated Urban Development Bank check No.
051946 dated 9 January 1990 for P5,500.00 (Exh. "E"). However, the checks covering the total
amount of P109,200.00 were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and closure of account.

Pressed to make good his obligation, respondent told complainant that he would be able to pay her
if she would lend him an additional amount of P75,000.00 to be paid a month after to be secured
by a chattel mortgage on his Datsun car.1 As complainant agreed respondent handed her three
(3) copies of a deed of chattel mortgage which he himself drafted and six (6) copies of the
deed of sale of his car with the assurance that he would turn over its registration certificate
and official receipt. The agreement was not consummated as respondent later sold the same
car to another.
Despite several chances given him to settle his obligation respondent chose to evade
complainant altogether so that she was constrained to write him a final demand letter dated
22 September 1992 2 preceding the filing of several criminal complaints against him for
violation of BP Blg. 22. 3 Complainant
also filed a letter-complaint dated 5 October 1992 with the Office of the Ombudsman.4

It may be worth mentioning that a certain Emelinda Ortiz also filed several criminal and
civil cases against respondent similarly involving money transactions.5 Ms. Ortiz claimed
that respondent had volunteered to sell to her a 20-footer container van filled with imported
cotton fabric shirting raw materials from the Bureau of Customs warehouse for P600,000.00
in time for the holidays. However, despite her successive payments to respondent totalling
P410,000.00, the latter failed to deliver the goods as promised. Worse, respondent's personal
check for P410,000.00 representing reimbursement of the amount he received from Ms. Ortiz
was returned dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

By way of defense, respondent averred that he gave the checks to complainant Co by way of
rediscounting and that these were fully paid when he delivered five cellular phones to her.
He brushed aside the allegations of complainant and Ms. Ortiz as ill-motivated, vague,
confusing, misleading and full of biases and prejudices. Although he is married he insinuated
a special relationship with the two (2) women which caused him to be careless in his dealings
with them.

On 3 March 1993 the Court referred this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.

On 17 May 1997 the IBP issued a resolution recommending the suspension of respondent
from the practice of law for six (6) months based on the following findings —

1. No receipt has been produced by respondent showing that the face value of
the subject checks has been paid or that the alleged five (5) units of cellular
phones have been delivered to the complainant;

2. The Decision in the criminal cases that were filed vis-a-vis the subject
bouncing checks and wherein he was acquitted clearly shows that his acquittal
was not due to payment of the obligation but rather that private complainant
knew at the time the accused issued the checks that the latter did not have
sufficient funds in the bank to cover the same. No violation of BP Blg. 22 is
committed where complainant was told by the drawer that he does not have
sufficient funds in the bank; and

3. Respondent subsequently paid the complainant as shown by a receipt dated

26 August 1995 . . . and the release of real estate mortgage . . . If it is true that
he had already paid his obligation with five (5) cellular phones, why pay again?

The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the
court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct
 in his non-professional or private capacity (In Re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 5569 [1923]).
Where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings
is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy
of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be
justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney (In Re
Sotto, 38 Phil. 569 [1923]).

The evidence on record clearly shows respondent's propensity to issue bad

checks. This gross misconduct on his part, though not related to his
professional duties as a member of the bar, puts his moral character in serious
doubt. The Commission, however, does not find him a hopeless case in the light
of the fact that he eventually paid his obligation to the complainant, albeit very
much delayed.6

While it is true that there was no attorney-client relationship between complainant and
respondent as the transaction between them did not require the professional legal services of
respondent, nevertheless respondent's abject conduct merits condemnation from this Court.
Thus we held in Lizaso v. Amante7 where Atty. Amante enticed complainant to invest in the
casino business with the proposition that her investment would yield her an interest of 10%
profit daily, and Atty. Amante not only failed to deliver the promised return on the
investment but also the principal thereof (P5,000.00) despite complainant's repeated
demands —

As early as 1923, however, the Court laid down in In Re Vicente Pelaez [44
Phil. 567 (1923)] the principle that it can exercise its power to discipline
lawyers for causes which do not involve the relationship of an attorney and
client . . . In disciplining the respondent, Mr. Justice Malcolm said: . . . As a
general rule, a court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its officers
for misconduct alleged to have been committed in his private capacity. But this
is a general rule with many exceptions . . . The nature of the office, the trust
relation which exists between attorney and client, as well as between court and
attorney, and the statutory rules prescribing the qualifications of attorneys,
uniformly require that an attorney shall be a person of good moral character.
If that qualification is a condition precedent to a license or privilege to enter
upon the practice of the law, it would seem to be equally essential during the
continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. So it is held that
an attorney will be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his
profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, which shows him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him . . . . 8

Ten years later, in Piatt v. Abordo9 where the erring lawyer was suspended for one year from
the practice of law for attempting to engage in an opium deal, Justice Malcolm reiterated
that an attorney may be removed not only for malpractice and dishonesty in his profession,
but also for gross misconduct not related to his professional duties which show him to be an
unfit and unworthy lawyer. "The courts are not curators of the morals of the bar. At the
same time the profession is not compelled to harbor all persons whatever their character,
who are fortunate enough to keep out of prison. As good character is an essential
qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorney's character is bad
in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an
attorney, the courts retain the power to discipline him . . . . Of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the law . . . and to that doctrine we give our
unqualified support." 10

Finally, reference is made to Rule 1.01, Chapter 1, entitled The Lawyer and Society of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which requires that "a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this Rule, is not
limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the performance of professional duties.

In the case at bar, it is glaringly clear that the procurement of personal loans through
insinuations of his power as an influence peddler in the Bureau of Customs, the issuance of
a series of bad checks and the taking undue advantage of his position in the aforesaid
government office constitute conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

The recommended suspension of respondent for six (6) months is less than what he justly
deserves. His propinquity for employing deceit and misrepresentations as well as his cavalier
attitude towards incurring debts without the least intention of repaying them is
reprehensible. This disturbing behavior cannot be tolerated most especially in a lawyer who
is an officer of the court.

WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO is SUSPENDED

FOR ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law with warning that repetition of the same or
similar acts will merit a more severe penalty. Let copies of this Decision be furnished all
courts in the land, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant and
spread in respondent's personal records.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Exh. "F," Complainant's Offer of Exhibits, p. 32.

2 Exh. "I," id., pp. 35-36.

3 Crim. Cases Nos. 99914-99918, Exhs. "M" to "Q," id., pp. 62-71.

4 Exh. "W," id., pp. 77-80.

5 Annex "J," IBP Records, Vol. III, pp. 37-38.

 6 Report and Recommendation, Adm. Case No. 3919.

7 Adm. Case No. 2019, 3 June 1991, 198 SCRA 1.

8 Id., pp. 9-11

9 58 Phil. 350 (1933).

10 Id., pp. 351-352.

A.M. No. 1037 December 14, 1998

VICTORIANO P. RESURRECCION, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CIRIACO C.

SAYSON, Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

To say that lawyers must at all times uphold and respect the law is to state the obvious, but such
statement can never be overemphasized. Considering that, "of all classes and professions, [lawyers
are] most sacredly bound to uphold the law, 1 it is imperative that they live by the law.
Accordingly, lawyers who violate their oath and engage in deceitful conduct have no place in the
legal profession.

In a Complaint-Affidavit, Victoriano P. Resurreccion charged Respondent Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson

with acts constituting "malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in his office and a violation of his
duties and oath as a lawyer." The Complaint arose from a homicide through reckless imprudence
case, in which Complaint Resurreccion was the defendant and Respondent Sayson was the counsel
for the offended party, Mr. Armando Basto Sr. The complaint alleged that, pursuant to the amicable
settlement previously reached by the parties, he gave P2,500 to the respondent who, however,
never gave the money to his client. Thus, the complainant was compelled to give another P2,500
to Mr. Basto as settlement of the case. The complainant then demanded the return of the money
from respondent, to no avail. Thus, the Complaint for Disbarment.

The records show that the Office of the Solicitor Genaral (OSG) conducted several hearings on
the matter, during which the complainant was represented by Atty. Ronaldo Lopez. Although
respondent had been notified, he failed to attend a number of such hearings. He eventually
appeared through his new counsel, Atty. Wenceslao Fajardo. Because respondent once again failed
to attend the next hearing, the OSG, in its September 4, 1973 Order, 2 deemed the investigation of
the case terminated. But upon the motion of the respondent, the OSG on October 31, 1973, set
aside its earlier Order and once again set the case for a hearing of the former's evidence. Since,
then, however, it appears that the OSG has not been able to submit its report and recommendation
on the case.
In 1990, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) took cognizance of the case, 3 and tasked
Commissioner Jesulito A. Manalo with the investigation, of which both the complainant and the
respondent were duly notified. Complainant Resurreccion manifested his assent to the pursuit of
the matter, but Respondent Sayson could not be found. 4 In his Report, Commissioner Manalo
presented the following facts.

Respondent, a member of the Philippine Bar was accused of having converted and appropriated
[for] his own personal benefit the amount P2,500.00 representing the amount which was delivered
by the complainant to the respondent as compensation or settlement money of a case for homicide
thru reckless imprudence.

xxx xxx xxx

Complainat alleged that on 13 May 1970, he was involved in a vehicular accident which occured
at Epifanio delos Santos Avenue, Quezon City which involved a boy [named] the name of
Armando Basto resulting [in] the death of the latter. By reason of the said incident, complainant
was accused of homicide thru reckless imprudence before the City Fiscal's Office at Quezon City.
In the preliminary investigation, the father of the victim Mr. Armando Basto Sr., was represented
by Atty. Ramon Umali. The case for homicide thru reckless imprudence was amicably settled on
8 August 1970 and respondent received from the complainant the amount of P2,500.00.
Respondent allegedlly assured complainant that the sum [would] be delivered to his client Mr.
Armando Basto, Sr. Respondent acknowledged in writing having received the amount of
P2,500.00.

Contrary however, to the assurances of the respondent, he had not delivered the said amount of
P2,500.00 and the case was not dismissed for which reason complainant was compelled to pay
anew the heirs of the victim the amount P2,500.00. Demands were made for the respondent to
return the said amount of P2,500.00 but the latter failed. By reason thereof, complaint filed a
complaint for estafa against the respondent before the City Court of Quezon City which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. III-149358 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ciriaco C.
Sayson".

In the hearing held on 22 May 1973, complainant Victoriano P. Resurrection appeared assisted by
his counsel. There was however, no appearance for the respondent Ciriaco C. Sayson. The
investigator declared his failure to appear as a waiver of his presence and Mr. Armando Basto Sr.
was presented as witness. He testified that he [was] the father of Armando Basto Jr. who was ran
over by a motor vehicle then driven by the respondent. By reason of such death a case was filed in
court and he was represented by Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, respondent in this case. A settlement
arrangement was arrived at and complainant entrusted the amount of P2,500.00 to the respondent
for the latter to turn over the same to his client. Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, however, failed to turn over
the said amount of P2,500.00 to his client for which reason the case was not immediately
dismissed. To effect dismissal of the case, complainant was forced to pay anew the sum of
P2,500.00

Complainant was next presented as witness and the testified that on 30 May 1970, he was involved
in a vehicular accident which resulted in the death of one armando Basto, Jr. By reason thereof, he
was accused of homicide thru reckless imprudence [,] and to effect settlement of that case he
agreed to pay the amount of P2,500.00.

On 8 August 1970, complainant together with his counsel conferred with [the] respondent in the
latter's office at may Building, Rizal Avenue, Manila and in a conference, a settlement was arrived
at whereby complainant [would] pay the amount of P2,500.00. This was done and payment was
delivered to the respondent who acknowledged having received the said amount.

Subsequently, complaint learned that the said amount of P2,500,00 was not delivered by
respondent to Mr. Armando Basto, Sr., the father of the victim for which reason he was compelled
to pay another amount of P2,500.00 to the heirs of the victim.

Thereafter, he demanded [the] return of the said amount of P2,500.00 from the respondent. Despite
visiting the latter fifteen or sixteen times, Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson still failed to return the money.
Thus, complainant filed a complaint for estafa which was elevated in Court and docketed as
Criminal Case No. 49358.

A Decision finding respondent guilty of [the] crime of estafa was promulgated by the City Court
of Quezon City. 5

Commissioner Manalo then rendered his evaluation and recommendation in this wise:

Complainant was able to establish by more than convincing that the misappropriation was in fact
committed by the respondent. This fact [is] eloquently poroven by Exhibits "A" to "E", all of which
were not controverted by the respondent.

xxx xxx xxx

In view of the foregoing, undersigned Commissioner respectfully recommends that the above-
entitled case be endorsed by the Honorable Board Governors to the Supreme Court with the
recommendation that the complain[ant be] disbarred and his name be stricken off . . . the roll of
attorneys.

xxx xxx xxx 6

On February 28, 1998, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution adopting and approving
the report and recommendation of Commissioner Manalo. The Resolution, signed by IBP National
Secretary Roland B. Inting and forwarded to this Court on March 28, 1998, is worded as follows:

RESOLUTION NO. XIII-97-202

Adm. Case No. 1037

Victoriano P. Resurreccion vs.

Atty. Ciriaco C. sayson

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein
made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A" and finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, respondent Atty. Ciriaco
C. Sayson is DISBARRED and . . . his name . . . stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for having
been found guilty of Estafa promulgated by the City Court of Quezon City and [which]
complainant was able to establish by more convincing evidences that misappropriation was in fact
committed by the respondent, all of which were not controverted by the respondent. 7

The Court agrees with Commissioner Manalo's findings and conclusion, as approved and adopted
by the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson must be disbarred.

Respondent Sayson was convicted of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City on
September 20, 1973. 8 Such conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals 9 and upheld by this
Court. 10

In In re Vinzon, 11 the Court disbarred a lawyer who had been convicted of estafa and held that
"moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty or good morals. In
essence and in all respects, estafa, no doubt, is a crime involving moral turpitude because the act
is unquestionably against justice, honesty and good morals.

In a more recent case, 12 the Court upheld the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to
disbar a lawyer who had been convicted of estafa through falsification of public documents,
because the was "totally unfit to be a member of the legal profession." In adopting, the
recommendation, we held that "good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one's good
standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity.

True, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court
and member of the bar. 13 Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as
temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. 14 However, in the present case, the
Court notes that even if respondent's culpability for estafa has been indubitably established, there
is no indication that he has served sentence, returned to complainant what was due him or showed
any remorse for what he did. The 27-year delay in the resolution of this case was, to a large extent,
caused by his failure to appear before the Office of the Solicitor General and to inform the IBP of
his change of address, a failure that also indicated his lack of regard for the very serious charges
brought against him. Respondent Sayson, by his conduct, has shown that he is not worthy to remain
a member of the bar.

Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who
are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. Because they are
vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially
in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach.
WHEREFORE, Respondent Ciriaco C. Sayson is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to strike out his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Martinez, Quisumbing, Purisima and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1 Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S. 265; cited in Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 214.

2 Issued by the investigating officer, Solicitor Norberto P. Eduardo.

3 Largely due to Complainant Resurreccion's steadfast determination to pursue the case. He had
written letters bewailing the delay in the resolution of the disbarment case and had submitted
documents which he thought were necessary for the proper disposition of the case, which were
either lost or misplaced at the Office of the Solicitor General.

4 All letters to Sayson were returned to the IBP.

5 Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 36-38.

6 Ibid., p. 39.

7 Rollo, vol. I, p. 35.

8 The decretal part of the trial court's Decision, penned by Judge Pacifico I. Punzalan, reads as
follows:

WHEREFORE, the finds the accused Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Estafa as charged in the information, defined and penalized under Article 315, sub-
division three sub. par. 1-b of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes upon him as penalty to
suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1)
year and eight (8) months of prision correccional as maximum to indemnify the offended party
Victoriano Resurreccion in the sum of P2,500.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, together with all the accessory penaties of law, and to pay the costs (CA Decision , p.
1).

9 In People of the Philippines v. Atty. Ciriaco C. Sayson, CA-GR. No. 15299-CR, the Court of
Appeals (First Division, composed of Justice Roseller T. Lim, ponente; and Justices Magno S.
Gatmaitan and Sixto A. Domondon, concurring) disposed of the case as follows:

The failure, therefore, of appellant to produce the money when confronted at the Fiscal's Office or
even when the present action was filed, is a clear indication of converting or misappropriating for
his own use and benefit the money he received for his client. We agree with the conclusion of the
lower court as follows:

From the facts of the above-entitled case, brought out during the trial by clear, satisfactory and
convincing evidence this court is of the view that when the accused received the amount of
P2,500.00 in Manila from the offended party Resurreccion pursuant to the agreement reached by
parties in Quezon City accused imposed upon himself the obligation and duty to deliver the said
amount to his client Basto, Sr. in Quezon City. and should he fall to do so to return the said amount
to Resurreccion, as borne out [by] the testimonies of Resurreccion and Atty. Umali. The failure of
the accused to deliver the amount of P2,500.00 to Basto and the subsequent failure of the accused
to return the said amount to Resurreccion coupled with his failure to give any reason for such
failure despite demands, clearly show misappropriation or conversion of the money. This
misappropriation or conversion or at least part thereof, as an essential ingredient of the offense of
estafa occured in Quezon City. The fact that Resurreccion was constrained to pay Basto against
the amount of P2,500.00 in order that the case against him would be dropped as it was indeed
dropped, sufficiently prove[s] prejudice and damage on the part of the complainant Resurreccion.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgement appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
cost against appellant. (CA Decision, pp. 9-10).

10 Rollo, vol. I, p. 15. The Court's March 18, 1977 Resolution is worded thus:

L-43834 (Atty. Ciriaco Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.). Considering the grounds of
petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the resolution of August 20, 1976 which denied the
petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals as well as the Solicitor
General's comment thereon the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for lack of merit and this
denial is FINAL. The Court of Appeals is directed to remand the records of this case to the trial
court for prompt execution of judgment to the trial court and to submit to this Court proof of such
remand, both within five (5) days from notice hereof.

11 19 SCRA 815, April 27, 1967. See also Medina v. Bautista, 12 SCRA 1, September 26, 1964,
and In Re: Abesamis, 102 Phil. 1182, January 17, 1958.

12 Villanueva v. Sta. Ana, 245 SCRA 707, July 11, 1995.

13 Tapucar v. Tapucar, Adm. Case No. 4148, July 30, 1998.

14 For example, in Castillo v. Taguines, 254 SCRA 554, March 11, 1996, the respondent who was
accused of estafa by his client, was suspended for one year from the practice of law. Likewise, in
Igual v. Javier (254 SCRA 416, March 7, 1996), suspended from the practice of law for one year
was the respondent, who was accused of having unlawfully withheld and misappropriated
complainant's money in the amount of P7,000.00, allegedly paid as acceptance fee for a matter on
which respondent never performed any work.

.C. No. 6061 - October 3, 2003

DR. RAUL C. SANCHEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. SALUSTINO SOMOSO, Respondent.

DECISION

VITUG, J.:

In his complaint-affidavit filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), Dr. Raul C. Sanchez, a member of the medical staff of Sta. Lucia General
Hospital, stated that he was the attending physician of respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso during
the latters confinement at the hospital from 31 March to 09 April 1998. When respondent was
discharged on 09 April 1998, he urged complainant that, since it was a public holiday and banks
were closed that day for business, the latter be good enough to accept a check in payment of the
hospital bills due complainant totalling P44,347.00. Although apprehensive at first, complainant
was later persuaded, however, by respondents plea of his being a lawyer who can be trusted as
such. Complainant thus accepted two personal checks from respondent; to wit:

BANK CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT

Metrobank 2620115754 04/14/98 P22,347.00
(Lagro Branch)
Metrobank 2620115755 04/16/98 P22,000.00
(Lagro Branch)1

When deposited, the checks were dishonored. Complainant immediately met with and informed
respondent about it. Respondent promised to redeem the dishonored checks in cash; he never did.

Ultimately, complainant 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
holding that the necessary Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) should
be filed against respondent. Pursuant to the resolution, two Informations for violation of BP 22
were filed against respondent before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A warrant for
his arrest was issued but, somehow, respondent was able to evade arrest.

Complainant in his administrative complaint submits that respondent is a disgrace to the law
profession and unfit to be a member of the bar, and that he should be disbarred and his name
stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

Pursuant to an order, dated 31 July 2002, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), respondent was furnished with a copy of the complaint and ordered to
submit his answer within fifteen (15) days from his receipt of a copy of the complaint. Despite the
receipt of the IBP-CBD order in his two given addresses, respondent failed to file his answer to
the complaint. Respondent was finally declared to be in default.

In its report and recommendation, the IBP-CBD found sufficient evidence on record to substantiate
the charges made by complainant against respondent and recommended that the latter be
suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. In Resolution No. XV-2003-
177, dated 26 April 2003, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted
and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD.

The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the IBP. Clearly, respondents 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. The Code of Professional
Responsibility specifically mandates that:

"Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.

"Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

"Canon 7. 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. 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."

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.2cräläwvirtualibräry

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. His conduct deserve nothing less than a
severe disciplinary sanction.

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.3cräläwvirtualibräry

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Salustino Somoso GUILTY of misconduct, and
he is ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective from
receipt of this decision, with a warning that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most
severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to all courts, as well as the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and to the Office of the Bar Confidant.

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

Endnotes:
1
Rollo, p. 11.
2
De Ere v. Rubi, 320 SCRA 617.
3
Resurreccion v. Sayson, 300 SCRA 129.