G.R. No. A.C. No. 10240; November 25, 2014
ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ, Complainant, vs. ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES, M.D., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Estrella R. Sanchez, a friend and close acquaintance of respondent Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, alleged that in 2007, Atty. Torres borrowed ₱2,200,000.00 from her, promising repayment within one month with interest. On November 8, 2007, Sanchez handed him the cash, which she withdrew in his presence. To secure the loan, Atty. Torres issued two Allied Bank checks totaling ₱2,200,000.00, both dated November 8, 2007. After a month, he failed to pay. Upon Sanchez’s inquiry, he assured her the checks would be honored. However, when deposited on May 2, 2008, the checks were returned due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Despite repeated demands over three years and formal demand letters sent by Sanchez’s lawyer in August and November 2008, Atty. Torres did not pay. In a letter dated May 9, 2009, he promised to pay in cash by May 15, 2009, but again failed. Sanchez filed a disciplinary complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. Atty. Torres moved for an extension to file an answer but ultimately failed to submit one. He also failed to appear at the mandatory conference despite notice. The IBP-CBD found him guilty of willful dishonesty and unethical conduct, recommending a two-year suspension and an order to return the ₱2,200,000.00 with interest. The IBP Board of Governors approved this. Atty. Torres, through counsel, later filed a manifestation claiming he had proof of payment but did not file a motion for reconsideration. The Court also noted that in a separate case, CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Nicolas C. Torres, Atty. Torres had already been disbarred.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Nicolas C. Torres is administratively liable for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his deliberate failure to pay a just debt, issuance of worthless checks, and disregard of the disciplinary proceedings.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Nicolas C. Torres is administratively liable for gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court sustained the findings of the IBP. The existence of the loan obligation was established by the checks and Atty. Torres’s own admission in his May 9, 2009 letter. His deliberate failure to pay a just debt and issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to obey laws and not engage in dishonest or deceitful conduct. His failure to answer the complaint, appear at hearings, and file a motion for reconsideration further demonstrated disrespect for the proceedings. Following precedent, the proper penalty for such infractions, considering the amount involved and his brazen disregard of IBP orders, is suspension from the practice of law for two years. However, the Court cannot order him to return the money in this disciplinary proceeding, as its sole concern is determining administrative liability. Notably, the Court found that Atty. Torres had already been disbarred in a previous case. While double disbarment is not imposed, the Court resolved the instant case to record the corresponding penalty in his personal file. Thus, the IBP’s finding of guilt is AFFIRMED, and a two-year suspension is deemed appropriate, but this penalty can no longer be imposed due to his prior disbarment.