AC 1109; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 1109; April 27, 2005
MARIA ELENA MORENO, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Maria Elena Moreno filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Ernesto Araneta for deceit and nonpayment of debts. The first cause involved a Land Registration Commission treasury warrant, indorsed by Araneta as president of Lira, Inc., which he gave to Moreno for P2,177. The warrant was later dishonored. The second cause pertained to two loans totaling P11,000 that Moreno allegedly extended to Araneta in October 1971 and May 1972. To repay these, Araneta issued two checks, which were dishonored upon presentment with the notation “Account Closed.”
In his defense, Araneta denied the loans. He claimed the treasury warrant was part of his attorney’s fees, which he endorsed to Moreno as part of a P2,500 accommodation loan to her. Regarding the checks, he asserted they were undated and given only for show, with a warning they were from a closed account, and that he secured a P11,000 check from Moreno to offset them. Moreno countered that this check belonged to a corporation she managed and was blank when she signed it during an illness, accusing Araneta of filling it out fraudulently.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Ernesto Araneta should be disbarred for deceit and gross misconduct for issuing worthless checks and failing to honor his monetary obligations.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Ernesto Araneta. The Court found his defenses unsubstantiated and his conduct indicative of deceit and gross misconduct. The issuance of worthless checks, whether as evidence of debt or as a sham, constitutes a violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. A lawyer’s fiduciary duty demands the highest degree of good faith and fair dealing. By issuing checks drawn against a closed account, Araneta engaged in deliberate dishonesty, which erodes public confidence in the legal profession.
The Court emphasized that moral character is a continuing requirement for law practice. Araneta’s failure to appear at scheduled hearings and his evasion of the proceedings further demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice. His actions, taken together, showed a clear deficiency in the moral fitness required to remain a member of the Bar. Consequently, the Court ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys for gross misconduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer.