G.R. No. A.C. No. 12202 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4535), December 5, 2019.
Jerry F. Villa, Complainant, vs. Atty. Paula Dimpa Beatriz Defensor-Velez, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jerry F. Villa and respondent Atty. Paula Dimpa Beatriz Defensor-Velez were both engaged in the business of providing security services. Respondent convinced complainant to lend her PHP 200,000.00, which she claimed she needed for her security guards’ payroll. Relying on respondent’s representations that she would not risk her integrity as a lawyer, complainant raised the money, even borrowing from a financier. They executed a Memorandum of Agreement dated September 23, 2014, detailing the loan and interest. Respondent undertook to issue a postdated check to cover the loan. After obtaining the loan, respondent cut all contact. When complainant deposited the PNB check on its due date, it was dishonored for insufficient funds. Complainant sent demand letters, which respondent ignored. Complainant initiated this administrative complaint. During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), respondent failed to respond to the complaint, failed to attend the mandatory conference/hearing, and failed to file the required conference brief despite notices, and was deemed to have waived her right to participate.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Paula Dimpa Beatriz Defensor-Velez should be held administratively liable for her conduct related to the loan obligation and her disregard of the IBP-CBD’s processes.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the factual findings and approved with modification the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent is found GUILTY of:
1. Violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (“A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct”) for evading payment of a just debt and issuing a worthless check. The Court emphasized that any wrongdoing indicating moral unfitness, whether professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Her willful failure to pay and issuance of a check dishonored for insufficient funds (an offense under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22) constitute dishonest and deceitful conduct, gross misconduct, and a violation of her Lawyer’s Oath. For this, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.
2. Violating Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for her blatant disregard and disrespect of the lawful orders and processes of the IBP-CBD, evidenced by her failure to answer the complaint and appear at the mandatory conference despite notices. For this, she is ORDERED to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00).
Respondent was WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses will warrant a more severe penalty.