AC 5365; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 5365 , April 27, 2005
Spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes vs. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre
FACTS
Complainants, spouses Franklin and Lourdes Olbes, obtained a loan of P10,000.00 through respondent Atty. Victor V. Deciembre. As security, they issued five blank PNB checks to him. On August 31, 1999, Lourdes fully paid the loan amounting to P14,874.37, for which respondent issued a receipt. Despite this full payment, respondent subsequently filled up four of the blank checks with amounts of P50,000.00 each, postdated them, and filed two separate criminal complaints for estafa and violation of B.P. 22 against the spouses. He alleged the spouses personally obtained P200,000.00 from him on July 15, 1999, using the checks. The spouses denied this, asserting they were at work that day, as supported by their Daily Time Records, making it physically impossible to have met respondent in two different locations (Cainta and Quezon City) within a short timeframe.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Victor V. Deciembre violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his actions in filling up the blank checks and filing criminal complaints after the loan had been settled.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and indefinitely suspended him from the practice of law. The Court rejected respondent’s defense that the transactions were private and unrelated to his profession. Lawyers are bound by a high standard of morality and honesty both in their professional and private conduct. The evidence overwhelmingly favored the complainants. The receipt proved full payment of the original loan, rendering the subsequent use of the checks as security baseless. Respondent’s narrative in his criminal affidavits—that the spouses met him in two distant cities on the same afternoon—was deemed physically implausible and fabricated.
The act of filling blank checks with unauthorized amounts after the obligation was extinguished constituted clear dishonesty, deceit, and malevolence. This was a serious transgression of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. By weaponizing the judicial process through groundless criminal suits to harass the complainants, respondent also violated his duty to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. His actions demonstrated a lack of the good moral character required of every lawyer, warranting the severe penalty of indefinite suspension.