February 2006 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 6971 - QUIRINO TOMLIN II v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II
EN BANC
[A.C. NO. 6971 : February 23, 2006]
QUIRINO TOMLIN II, Complainant, v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On December 1, 2003, Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint1 before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II for allegedly reneging on his monetary obligations and for having issued bouncing checks; thereby violating the Code of Professional Responsibility2 and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22.3
Complainant averred that respondent borrowed from him P600,000.00 partially covered by seven postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee bank, to wit:
Check No. |
Due Date |
Amount |
Reason for Dishonor |
MOB 1011326 |
May 16, 2001 |
P13,500.00 |
RTCOCI |
MOB 1011311 |
June 11, 2001 |
P30,000.00 |
RTCOCI |
MOB 1011328 |
June 17, 2001 |
P5,000.00 |
Account Closed |
MOB 1011313 |
August 12, 2001 |
P50,000.00 |
Account Closed |
MOB 1011329 |
August 16, 2001 |
P5,000.00 |
Account Closed |
MOB 1011314 |
August 19, 2001 |
P50,000.00 |
Account Closed |
MOB 1011330 |
September 18, 2001 |
P5,000.00 |
Account Closed |
Complainant made several demands, the last being a formal letter4 sent on September 25, 2002;5 however, respondent still failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. Consequently, complainant instituted a case for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.6 In addition, he filed the instant case for respondent's disbarment.
On December 1, 2003, respondent was directed to file his answer but instead he filed several motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading7 and a motion to dismiss complaint.8
Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule on non-forum shopping. He argued that complainant did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.9 Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency of the criminal cases is a form of harassment which should not be allowed.
On April 28, 2004, the Commission on Bar Discipline denied10 the motion to dismiss for being a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 3 of its Rules of Procedure. Respondent's motion for reconsideration11 was likewise denied on June 16, 2004.12
Thereafter, respondent filed several motions for extension of time to file an answer.13 His last motion for extension was however denied for lack of merit. Consequently, the Commission on Bar Discipline declared him in default.14
Respondent thereafter filed a manifestation with motion to terminate proceedings on the ground of prescription15 and omnibus motion to recall the default order.16
On January 3, 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties to submit their respective verified position papers after which the case shall be considered submitted for resolution.17
Only the complainant submitted his position paper.18
In the Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent failed to file an answer and/or position paper despite several requests for extension, in disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it was observed that the pending criminal action against respondent does not pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the issues in the present administrative case. Hence, it was recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
On October 22, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of the Investigating Commissioner, but modified the penalty of suspension from the practice of law from one year to two years.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
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
In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant 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 the complainant, respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless checks, an act constituting gross misconduct.22 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.23
The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum shopping with the filing of this administrative complaint is bereft of merit. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari ) in another24 or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.25 Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.26 Moreover, Criminal Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondent's act of making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative case, only preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.27
Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless from applying the rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.28
Finally, we note that respondent failed to file his answer and verified position paper despite several opportunities given him by the IBP, that is, from the time he received on December 20, 200329 the Order30 of the IBP requiring him to file an answer until March 31, 2005 when the Investigating Commissioner submitted the Report and Recommendation. Instead, he filed several motions for extension of time, motion to dismiss the complaint, motion for reconsideration, manifestation with motion to terminate proceedings, and omnibus motion to recall the default order. Until the end, respondent offered no plausible explanation for his failure to pay his debts. Instead, he kept on insisting, on plainly unmeritorious grounds, the dismissal of the complaint. Verily, respondent's failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.31 Respondent should be reminded that the IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his membership therein.32
In view of the foregoing, we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years as recommended by the IBP commensurate under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately, 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 the Office of the Bar Confidant.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 12-17.
2 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes; and
Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
3 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (1979), Sec. 1.
4 Rollo, p. 8.
5 Id. at 9.
6 Id. at 61-67.
7 Id. at 26-29, 30-33, 34-38.
8 Id. at 45-58.
9 Criminal Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03.
10 Rollo, p. 110.
11 Id. at 113-120.
12 Id. at 123-124.
13 Id. at 125-130, 135-137.
14 Id. at 140-141.
15 Id. at 142-146.
16 Id. at 147-150.
17 Id. at 152-153.
18 Id. at 157-165.
19 Lao v. Medel, 453 Phil. 115, 120 (2003).
20 Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005.
21 People v. Tuanda, A.C. No. 3360, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 692, 697.
22 Lao v. Medel, supra at 121.
23 Id. at 120.
24 First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280, 305 (1996).
25 Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 619, 655-656 (1995).
26 Lucente v. Evangelista, Jr., 444 Phil. 721, 727 (2003).
27 Po Cham v. Pizarro, A.C. No. 5499. August 16, 2005.
28 In re Brillantes, Adm. Case No. 1245, March 2, 1977, 76 SCRA 1, 15.
29 Rollo, p. 26.
30 Id. at 25.
31 Garcia v. Bala, supra note 20.
32 Lao v. Medel, supra note 19 at 123.
