ENBANC

[A.C.No.5916.July1,2003]

SELWYNF.LAO,complainant,vs.ATTY.ROBERTW.MEDEL,respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN,J.:

The deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute
gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with oneyear suspension from the
practiceoflaw.
TheCaseandtheFacts
ThisadministrativecasestemsfromaComplaintAffidavit[1]filedwiththeIntegratedBarof
the PhilippinesCommission on Bar Discipline (IBPCBD) by Selwyn F. Lao. Atty. Robert W.
Medel was charged therein with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming an
attorney.
ThematerialavermentsoftheComplaintaresummarizedbytheIBPCBDinthiswise:
TheComplaintarosefromthe[respondents]persistentrefusaltomakegoodonfour(4)RCBCchecks
totaling[t]wenty[t]wo[t]housand(P22,000.00)[p]esos.Thesedishonoredcheckswereissuedby
defendantinreplacementforpreviouschecksissuedtothecomplainant.Basedontheexchangeofletters
betweentheparties,itappearsthat[respondent],inaletterdatedJune19,2001,hadcommittedto
forthwitheffectimmediatesettlementofmyoutstandingobligationofP22,000.00withEngr.Lao,atthe
earliestpossibletime,preferably,onorbeforetheendofJune2000.Again,inaletterdatedJuly3,2000,
the[respondent]madearequestforafinalextensionofonlyten(10)daysfromJune30,2000(ornot
laterthanJuly10,2000),withinwhichtoeffectpaymentofP22,000.00toEngr.Lao.Needlesstosay,
theinitiationofthispresentcomplaintprovesthatcontrarytohiswrittenpromises,Atty.Medelnever
madegoodonhisdishonoredchecks.Neitherhashepaidhisindebtedness.[2]
InhisAnswer[3]datedJuly30,2001,Atty.Medelreasonsthatbecauseallofhisproposals
to settle his obligation were rejected, he was unable to comply with his promise to pay
complainant.Respondent maintains that the Complaint did not constitute a valid ground for
disciplinaryactionbecauseofthefollowing:
(a).UnderSec.27,Rule138oftheRules,amemberoftheBar,maybedisbarredorsuspendedfromhis
officeasattorneybytheSupremeCourtforanydeceit,malpractice,orothergrossmisconductinsuch
office,grosslyimmoralconduct,orbyreasonofhisconvictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude,or
foranyviolationoftheoathwhichheisrequiredtotakebeforeadmissiontopractice,orforawil[l]ful
disobedienceofanylawfulorderofasuperiorcourt,orforcorruptlyorwil[l]fullyappearingasan
attorneyforapartytocasewithoutauthoritysotodo.Thepracticeofsolicitingcasesatlawforthe

purposeofgain,eitherpersonallyorthroughpaidagentsorbrokers,constitutesmalpractice
(a.1).Applyingtheaforecitedlegalprovisiontothefactsobtaininginthepresentcase,itisclearthatthe
offensewithwhichtherespondentisbeingchargedbythecomplainant,ismerelyaviolationofBatas
PambansaBilang22(B.P.22,forbrevity),whichisaspeciallaw,andisnotpunishableunderthe
RevisedPenalCode(RPC,forbrevity).Itisselfevidenttherefore,thattheoffenseisnotinthesame
categoryasaviolationofArticle315,paragraph2,(d),RPC,whichisissuingapostdatedcheckora
checkinpaymentofanobligation,withinsufficientfundsinthedraweebank,throughfalsepretensesor
fraudulentacts,executedpriortoorsimultaneouslywiththecommissionofthefraud,whichisacrime
involvingmoralturpitude
(b).IftherespondentistobedisciplinedbytheSupremeCourt,underSec.27,Rule138oftheRules,for
theissuanceofaworthlesscheck,inviolationofB.P.22,forpaymentofapreexistingobligationtothe
complainant,then,verily,thesaidRule138,Sec.27,wouldbeacruelandanunjustlaw,whichthe
HonorableSupremeCourtwouldnotcountenance
(c).Acarefulexaminationofthespecificgroundsenumerated,fordisbarmentorsuspensionofamember
oftheBar,underSec.27ofRule138oftheRules,clearlyshowsbeyondashadowofdoubtthatthe
allegedissuanceofaworthlesscheck,inviolationofB.P.22,isNOToneofthegroundsfordisciplinary
actionagainstamemberoftheBar,towarranthisdisbarmentorsuspensionfromhisofficeasattorney,
bytheSupremeCourtand
(d).TheissuanceofaworthlesscheckbyamemberoftheBar,inviolationofB.P.22,doesNOT
constitutedishonest,immoralordeceitfulconduct,underCanon1andRule1.01oftheCodeof
ProfessionalResponsibility.Thisisbecause,thedoortothelawprofessionswingsonreluctant
hinges.Statedotherwise,unlessthereisaclear,palpableandunmitigatedimmoralordeceitfulconduct,
ofamemberoftheBar,inviolationofhisoathasanattorney,bythemereissuanceofaworthlesscheck,
inviolationofB.P.22,theSupremeCourtisinclinedtogivethesaidattorney,thebenefitofthedoubt.[4]
On August 22, 2001, complainant submitted his Reply.[5] Thereafter, IBPCBD
Commissioner Renato G. Cunanan, to whom the case was assigned by the IBP for
investigation and report, scheduled the case for hearing on October 4, 2001. After several
cancellations, the parties finally met on May 29, 2002. In that hearing, respondent
acknowledgedhisobligationandcommittedhimselftopayatotalofP42,000(P22,000forhis
principal debt and P20,000 for attorneys fees).Complainant agreed to give him until July 4,
2002 to settle the principal debt and to discuss the plan of payment for attorneys fees in the
nexthearing.
On July 4, 2002, both parties appeared before the IBPCBD for their scheduled
hearing.But,whilewaitingforthecasetobecalled,respondentsuddenlyinsistedonleaving,
supposedly to attend to a family emergency. Complainants counsel objected and
Commissioner Cunanan, who was still conducting a hearing in another case, ordered him to
wait.He,however,retortedinaloudvoice,Itsuptoyou,thisisonlydisbarment,myfamilyis
moreimportant.[6]And,despitetheobjectionandthewarning,hearrogantlyleft.He made no
efforttocomplywithhisundertakingtosettlehisindebtednessbeforeleaving.
ReportandRecommendationoftheIBP
In his September 19, 2002 Report,[7] Commissioner Cunanan found respondent guilty of

violatingtheattorneysoathandtheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Theformerexplained
that, contrary to the latters claim, violation of BP 22 was a crime that involved moral
turpitude.Further, he observed that [w]hile no criminal case may have been instituted against
[respondent],itisbeyondcavilthatindeed,[thelatter]committednotone(1)butfourcountsof
violationofBP22.[8]Therefusal[byrespondent]topayhisindebtedness,hisbrokenpromises,
his arrogant attitude towards complainants counsel and the [commission sufficiently] warrant
theimpositionofsanctionsagainsthim.[9]Thus,theinvestigatingcommissionerrecommended
thatrespondentbesuspendedfromthepracticeoflaw.
InResolutionNo.XV2002598,[10]theBoardofGovernorsoftheIBPadoptedtheReport
andRecommendationofCommissionerCunananandresolvedtosuspendrespondentfromthe
practice of law for two years. The Resolution, together with the records of the case, was
transmittedtothisCourtforfinalaction,pursuanttoRule139BSec.12(b).
TheCourtsRuling
WeagreewiththefindingsandrecommendationoftheIBPBoardofGovernors,butreduce
theperiodofsuspensiontooneyear.
AdministrativeLiabilityofRespondent
Lawyersareinstrumentsfortheadministrationofjustice.Asvanguardsofourlegalsystem,
they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality,
honesty,integrityandfairdealing.[11]Insodoing,thepeoplesfaithandconfidenceinthejudicial
systemisensured.
Inthepresentcase,respondenthasbeenbroughttothisCourtforfailuretopayhisdebts
and for issuing worthless checks as payment for his loan from complainant. While
acknowledging the fact that he issued several worthless checks, he contends that such act
constitutes neither a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility nor dishonest,
immoralordeceitfulconduct.
The defense proffered by respondent is untenable. It is evident from the records that he
made several promises to pay his debt promptly. However, he reneged on his obligation
despite sufficient time afforded him. Worse, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing and
transferredtheblametocomplainant,onthecontortedreasoningthatthelatterhadrefusedto
accepttheformersplanofpayment.Itmustbepointedoutthatcomplainanthadnoobligation
toacceptit,consideringrespondentspreviousfailuretocomplywithearlierpaymentplansfor
thesamedebt.
Moreover, before the IBPCBD, respondent had voluntarily committed himself to the
payment of his debts, yet failed again to fulfill his promise. That he had no real intention to
settlethemisevidentfromhisunremittingfailedcommitments.Hiscavalierattitudeinincurring
debtswithoutanyintentionofpayingforthemputshismoralcharacterinseriousdoubt.
Verily,lawyersmustatalltimesfaithfullyperformtheirdutiestosociety,tothebar,tothe
courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial
obligations.Theirconductmustalwaysreflectthevaluesandnormsofthelegalprofessionas
embodiedintheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.Ontheseconsiderations,theCourtmay

disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or to be unworthy to
continueasofficersoftheCourt.[12]
Itisequallydisturbingthatrespondentremorselesslyissuedaseriesofworthlesschecks,
unmindfulofthedeleteriouseffectsofsuchacttopublicinterestandpublicorder.[13]
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all members of the bar to
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. Rule 1.01 of the Code specifically
provides that [a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. In Co v.Bernardino,[14] the Court considered the issuance of worthless checks as a
violationofthisRuleandanactconstitutinggrossmisconduct.Itexplainedthus:
Thegeneralruleisthatalawyermaynotbesuspendedordisbarred,andthecourtmaynotordinarily
assumejurisdictiontodisciplinehimformisconductinhisnonprofessionalorprivatecapacity(InRe
Pelaez,44Phil.5569[1923]).Where,however,themisconductoutsideofthelawyer'sprofessional
dealingsissogrossacharacterastoshowhimmorallyunfitfortheofficeandunworthyoftheprivilege
whichhislicensesandthelawconferonhim,thecourtmaybejustifiedinsuspendingorremovinghim
fromtheofficeofattorney(InReSotto,38Phil.569[1923]).
Theevidenceonrecordclearlyshowsrespondent'spropensitytoissuebadchecks.Thisgrossmisconduct
onhispart,thoughnotrelatedtohisprofessionaldutiesasamemberofthebar,putshismoralcharacter
inseriousdoubt.TheCommission,however,doesnotfindhimahopelesscaseinthelightofthefactthat
heeventuallypaidhisobligationtothecomplainant,albeitverymuchdelayed.
Whileitistruethattherewasnoattorneyclientrelationshipbetweencomplainantandrespondentasthe
transactionbetweenthemdidnotrequiretheprofessionallegalservicesofrespondent,nevertheless
respondent'sabjectconductmeritscondemnationfromthisCourt.
Asearlyas1923,however,theCourtlaiddowninInReVicentePelaez[44Phil.567(1923)]the
principlethatitcanexerciseitspowertodisciplinelawyersforcauseswhichdonotinvolvethe
relationshipofanattorneyandclientxxxIndiscipliningtherespondent,Mr.JusticeMalcolmsaid:xxx
Asageneralrule,acourtwillnotassumejurisdictiontodisciplineoneofitsofficersformisconduct
allegedtohavebeencommittedinhisprivatecapacity.Butthisisageneralrulewithmanyexceptionsx
xx.Thenatureoftheoffice,thetrustrelationwhichexistsbetweenattorneyandclient,aswellas
betweencourtandattorney,andthestatutoryrulesprescribingthequalificationsofattorneys,uniformly
requirethatanattorneyshallbeapersonofgoodmoralcharacter.Ifthatqualificationisacondition
precedenttoalicenseorprivilegetoenteruponthepracticeofthelaw,itwouldseemtobeequally
essentialduringthecontinuanceofthepracticeandtheexerciseoftheprivilege.Soitisheldthatan
attorneywillberemovednotonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyinhisprofession,butalsoforgross
misconductnotconnectedwithhisprofessionalduties,whichshowshimtobeunfitfortheofficeand
unworthyoftheprivilegeswhichhislicenseandthelawconferuponhimxxx.
Tenyearslater,inPiattv.Abordowheretheerringlawyerwassuspendedforoneyearfromthepractice
oflawforattemptingtoengageinanopiumdeal,JusticeMalcolmreiteratedthatanattorneymaybe
removednotonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyinhisprofession,butalsoforgrossmisconductnot
relatedtohisprofessionaldutieswhichshowhimtobeanunfitandunworthylawyer.Thecourtsarenot
curatorsofthemoralsofthebar.Atthesametimetheprofessionisnotcompelledtoharborallpersons
whatevertheircharacter,whoarefortunateenoughtokeepoutofprison.Asgoodcharacterisan
essentialqualificationforadmissionofanattorneytopractice,whentheattorney'scharacterisbadin
suchrespectsastoshowthatheisunsafeandunfittobeentrustedwiththepowersofanattorney,the
courtsretainthepowertodisciplinehimxxxOfallclassesandprofessions,thelawyerismostsacredly

boundtoupholdthelawxxxandtothatdoctrinewegiveourunqualifiedsupport."
We likewise take notice of the highhanded manner in which respondent dealt with
Commissioner Cunanan during the July 4, 2002 hearing, when the former was expected to
settle his obligation with complainant. We cannot countenance the discourtesy of
respondent.HeshouldberemindedthattheIBPhasdisciplinaryauthorityoverhimbyvirtueof
hismembershiptherein.[15]
Thus,itwasimperativeforhimtorespecttheauthorityoftheofficerassignedtoinvestigate
hiscase.Assuming that he had a very important personal matter to attend to, he could have
politelyexplainedhispredicamenttotheinvestigatingcommissionerandaskedpermissionto
leaveimmediately.Unfortunately,theformershoweddismalbehaviorbyraisinghisvoiceand
leavingwithouttheconsentofcomplainantandtheinvestigatingcommissioner.
We stress that membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[16] It demands a high
degreeofgoodmoralcharacter,notonlyasaconditionprecedenttoadmission,butalsoasa
continuing requirement for the practice of law.[17] In this case, respondent fell short of the
exactingstandardsexpectedofhimasaguardianoflawandjustice.[18]
Accordingly,administrativesanctioniswarrantedbyhisgrossmisconduct.TheIBPBoard
of Governors recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law for two
years. However, in line with Co v. Bernardino,[19] Ducat Jr. v. Villalon Jr.
[20]
andSaburnidov.Madroo[21] which also involved gross misconduct of lawyers we find
thesuspensionofoneyearsufficientinthiscase.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Robert W. Medel is found guilty of gross misconduct and is
herebySUSPENDED for one year from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision. He is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
LetcopiesofthisDecisionbeenteredintherecordofrespondentandservedontheIBP,
aswellasonthecourtadministratorwhoshallcirculateittoallcourtsfortheirinformationand
guidance.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, YnaresSantiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio,
Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
Quisumbing,J.,onleave.
AustriaMartinez,J.,onofficialleave.