A.C. No. 5916; July 1, 2003
SELWYN F. LAO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ROBERT W. MEDEL, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Selwyn F. Lao filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Robert W. Medel for dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming an attorney. The complaint arose from respondent’s failure to pay a debt of P22,000.00, despite issuing four replacement checks that were subsequently dishonored. Respondent, in written correspondence, repeatedly promised to settle the obligation by specific dates but consistently failed to do so. During the mandatory conference before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, respondent acknowledged the debt and committed to pay P42,000.00 (covering the principal and attorney’s fees) by July 4, 2002.
On the scheduled hearing date, respondent appeared but insisted on leaving abruptly, citing a family emergency, despite objections from complainant’s counsel and a direct order from the Investigating Commissioner to wait. Respondent retorted loudly, “It’s up to you, this is only disbarment, my family is more important,” and left arrogantly without making any payment. He made no subsequent effort to fulfill his undertaking.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s deliberate failure to pay a just debt, issuance of worthless checks, and disrespectful conduct constitute gross misconduct warranting disciplinary sanction.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and suspended him from the practice of law for one year. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a lawyer’s professional privilege is contingent upon the continuous possession of good moral character. The Court held that the issuance of worthless checks, constituting a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, involves moral turpitude as it is an act of deceit and reflects on a person’s honesty and integrity. While the debt originated from a personal transaction, respondent’s subsequent acts—issuing bouncing checks, making and breaking written promises of payment, and demonstrating arrogant contempt for the disciplinary proceedings—transformed a private obligation into professional misconduct.
The Court emphasized that such conduct violates Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to uphold the law and avoid deceitful behavior. Respondent’s actions, particularly his blatant disregard for the IBP proceedings, demonstrated a failure to live up to the exacting standards of the legal profession. His defense that BP 22 violation is not a specific ground for disbarment under the Rules of Court was rejected, as the Court exercises its disciplinary power over any conduct that shows unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. The one-year suspension was deemed appropriate, following precedents, to penalize the gross misconduct and serve as a deterrent.