AC 5454; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5454, November 23, 2004
Carmelina Y. Rangwani, complainant, vs. Atty. Ramon S. Diño, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Carmelina Rangwani alleged that respondent Atty. Ramon Diño, befriending her and leveraging his standing as a lawyer, convinced her to part with her land title. He failed to return it upon demand and later offered to buy the property, issuing four post-dated checks totaling P202,570. All checks were dishonored upon deposit for being drawn against a closed account. Rangwani subsequently filed criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Diño, and warrants for his arrest were issued.
In the administrative proceedings, Rangwani initially filed a withdrawal of her complaint, citing misunderstanding, but later moved to reinstate it, claiming Diño had begged for the withdrawal with an unfulfilled promise of settlement. She subsequently filed another motion to dismiss, stating obligations had been offset by legal services. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a one-year suspension.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Ramon Diño should be held administratively liable for his conduct involving the dishonored checks and his dealings with the complainant.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Diño from the practice of law for one year. The Court emphasized that administrative cases against lawyers are sui generis, intended to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and are not dependent on the whims of the complainant. Thus, the complainant’s subsequent desistance and motions to dismiss did not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority.
The legal logic is clear: a lawyer’s issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such act is indicative of deceit and malpractice, which erode public confidence in the legal profession. The Court found Diño’s actions, including his evasion of arrest warrants and his attempt to settle the administrative case through a withdrawn promise, as aggravating circumstances demonstrating a lack of good moral character. The one-year suspension serves both as a punitive measure and a means to uphold the ethical standards of the bar, irrespective of any private compromise between the parties. The penalty is consistent with jurisprudence for similar offenses involving dishonored checks and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.