A.C. No. 12174. August 28, 2018
Alfred Lehnert, Complainant, v. Atty. Dennis L. Diño, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alfred Lehnert filed an administrative complaint seeking the permanent disbarment of Atty. Dennis L. Diño for violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from Atty. Diño being charged with two counts of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. A warrant for his arrest was issued, but law enforcement agents were unable to locate him at his known residential and office addresses, leading Lehnert to allege that the respondent was evading arrest.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline directed the parties to submit conference briefs and appear at a mandatory conference. Atty. Diño failed to appear or submit any brief. The Investigating Commissioner found him guilty of professional misconduct for issuing dishonored checks and for his failure to participate in the administrative proceedings. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Commissioner’s findings and recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Dennis L. Diño should be held administratively liable for professional misconduct.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Diño is administratively liable and is suspended from the practice of law for two years. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings and recommended penalty. The legal logic proceeds from the foundational duties of a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 mandate lawyers to obey the laws and not engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The act of issuing worthless checks constitutes a violation of these rules, as it is both unlawful and dishonest, eroding public trust in the legal profession. The Court, citing precedent, consistently holds that such conduct amounts to gross misconduct.
Furthermore, the respondent’s disregard of the IBP’s lawful orders by failing to appear and participate in the administrative investigation constituted an aggravating circumstance. This demonstrated a lack of respect for the legal processes he is sworn to uphold. The Court distinguished the penalty by referencing jurisprudence where a two-year suspension was imposed for the combined infractions of issuing worthless checks and exhibiting contempt for disciplinary authorities, as opposed to a one-year suspension for the act of issuing checks alone. Thus, the two-year suspension was deemed appropriate to address both the underlying misconduct and the aggravating behavior of evading the disciplinary process. The Court also issued a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.