AC 3806; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 3806 December 16, 1992
Araceli S. De Jesus, complainant, vs. Atty. Consuelo Collado, respondent.
FACTS
Araceli De Jesus charged Atty. Consuelo Collado, a Court Attorney IV in the Supreme Court, with issuing nine bouncing checks totaling P243,063.75 as payment for merchandise purchased on credit in November and December 1991. The checks were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and closed accounts. De Jesus filed both an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court’s Chief Administrative Officer and a disbarment complaint with the Office of the Bar Confidant. Respondent failed to submit her comment on the administrative charge despite due notice and warnings. In the disbarment case, she submitted a delayed comment, admitting the purchase and issuance of checks but claiming the transactions were private and her inability to pay resulted from her buyers’ non-remittance. Criminal informations for estafa or violation of B.P. Blg. 22 were filed against her. Pending resolution, complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance as respondent had fully paid her obligation. The Court also issued a hold-departure order against respondent.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Consuelo Collado should be disciplined as a member of the Bar and as a court employee for issuing bouncing checks.
RULING
Yes. The Court suspended Atty. Consuelo Collado from the practice of law for one year and dismissed her from government service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits).
The issuance of bouncing checks in violation of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious misconduct for a member of the Bar, even absent a criminal conviction, as she admitted issuing checks without sufficient funds. A lawyer must observe honesty and fairness in all transactions. Her conduct also constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal from the civil service, as everyone connected with the dispensation of justice must act with propriety and decorum above suspicion. The affidavit of desistance did not negate the administrative liability arising from the admitted acts.