AC 74; (November, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 74 November 20, 1951
In Re: ATTY. ARTURO SAMANIEGO, respondent.
FACTS
Prior to 1948, Bernardo Samaniego (the respondent’s cousin) filed a war damage claim. He was married to Isabel Medina but had lived separately from her for about fifteen years, cohabiting instead with Alejandra Cruz, with whom he had children. Bernardo Samaniego died on February 29, 1948. A check for P841.50 was later issued by the U.S.—Philippine War Damage Commission in the name of the deceased Bernardo Samaniego. Alejandra Cruz, claiming to be his widow, obtained the check. On September 21, 1948, the respondent, Atty. Arturo Samaniego, accompanied Alejandra Cruz to the National City Bank of New York to cash the check. With the assistance of a bank employee acquaintance, Proceso Jodloman, the respondent signed the name “Bernardo Samaniego” on the check as the payee. Jodloman identified the signature, and the respondent signed the name again before the teller, who then paid the amount to Alejandra Cruz. The respondent claimed he acted in good faith, believing Alejandra Cruz was the lawful widow, and only to help her financially, and that he did not profit from the transaction (though Alejandra Cruz alleged she gave him P100 for a debt to his mother). He also asserted he showed Jodloman his own identification documents.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent, Atty. Arturo Samaniego, committed malpractice or conduct warranting disciplinary action as a member of the bar.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of an act indicative of moral laxity unbecoming a lawyer. While the Court believed the respondent acted without malice and did not personally profit, and while his good faith and desire to help may mitigate liability, he knowingly signed the name of a deceased payee to cash a check. As a lawyer, he was expected to know the legal procedures for establishing a widow’s right to such a check and that he could not legitimately cash it by forging the dead payee’s signature. This act misled the bank. Considering all circumstances, including the potential infringement on the rights of the lawful wife and heirs, the Court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year from the finality of the resolution.