A.C. No. 11380. August 16, 2016
JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The complainant, Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz, and the respondent, Atty. Chichina Faye Lim, were childhood friends. This relationship facilitated respondent’s borrowing of substantial sums from complainant and her brother. In 2008, respondent used complainant’s ATM and credit card without full authorization, depleting funds and incurring a cash advance, resulting in an unpaid debt of ₱142,000. That same year, respondent obtained a ₱1.055 million loan from complainant’s brother, issuing postdated checks that were later dishonored due to a closed account. In February 2010, respondent issued more postdated checks to complainant as partial payment for a loan exceeding ₱3 million, which were also dishonored for the same reason. Despite repeated demands and a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and estafa, respondent failed to settle her obligations.
Before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), respondent failed to submit an Answer, appear at the mandatory conference, or file a position paper despite due notice. The IBP Investigating Commissioner deemed this an admission of guilt and recommended suspension until full payment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings but modified the penalty to disbarment, citing respondent’s disrespect for its orders as an aggravating circumstance. Respondent subsequently filed a Petition for Review, arguing her actions were in a private capacity, she made partial payments, and disbarment was too harsh.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Chichina Faye Lim should be held administratively liable for her conduct involving the issuance of worthless checks and failure to pay debts.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Chichina Faye Lim from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that her actions were purely private and thus outside disciplinary reach. By taking the Lawyer’s Oath, a lawyer becomes a guardian of the law and an officer of the court, accountable for misconduct whether in a professional or private capacity. The complainant and her brother explicitly lent money because respondent was a lawyer, indicating she leveraged her professional standing to gain trust. Her repeated issuance of worthless checks and failure to honor her promises constituted deceitful conduct that eroded public confidence in the legal profession.
The Court agreed with the IBP’s factual findings but modified the penalty. While the issuance of worthless checks is a serious offense warranting discipline, as established in precedents like Enriquez v. De Vera, disbarment is reserved for the most severe cases. Citing Anacta v. Resurrection, the Court held that a less severe penalty should be imposed if it suffices. Following analogous cases such as Sanchez v. Torres, where a two-year suspension was imposed for similar conduct involving worthless checks and exploitation of friendship for loans, the Court found this penalty appropriate. It serves the dual purpose of punishing the misconduct and upholding the integrity of the legal profession, without the extreme finality of disbarment. The Court reiterated its exclusive constitutional power to discipline lawyers, adopting the IBP’s findings but independently determining the suitable sanction.