G.R. No. A.C. No. 8330. March 16, 2015.
TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Teresita B. Enriquez, a businesswoman, filed an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension against Atty. Trina De Vera. Teresita alleged that in April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed ₱500,000.00 from her with monthly interest, persuading Teresita to secure the funds by mortgaging her property. Atty. De Vera issued a post-dated check for the principal and additional checks for the interest. In June 2006, Atty. De Vera obtained another loan of ₱100,000.00 from Teresita’s sister, guaranteed by Teresita, and issued a corresponding post-dated check. Upon presentation, all checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and later because the account was closed. Teresita filed criminal complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and estafa, resulting in a finding of probable cause and the filing of an Information for estafa. In her defense, Atty. De Vera claimed the checks were issued merely as a “guaranty” for a business project advance she made for Teresita and were not intended for encashment, denying any loan obligation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and recommended a one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted and later affirmed upon denying both parties’ motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Trina De Vera committed serious misconduct warranting administrative liability for issuing worthless checks in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Trina De Vera is guilty of serious misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law for one year. The Court affirmed the IBP’s findings. The act of issuing worthless checks constitutes a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, which is a serious crime involving moral turpitude. As a lawyer, Atty. De Vera is bound by her oath to obey the laws and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her actions, regardless of her claim that the checks were merely guaranties and not for value, demonstrated unlawful and deceitful conduct. The gravamen of the offense is the issuance of a worthless check, and such act adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law. The pendency of criminal proceedings does not preclude administrative discipline, as the two proceedings are separate and distinct. By issuing dishonored checks, she violated Canon 1 (a lawyer shall uphold the law), Rule 1.01 (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct), Canon 7 (a lawyer shall uphold the integrity of the legal profession), and Rule 7.03 (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.