MORENO V. ARANETA A.C. NO.

1109 (27 APRIL 2005) FACTS: Petitioner is a manager of Philippine Leasing Corporation while Respondent is a lawyer and president of Lira, Inc.; On 25 September 1972, petitioner filed a complaint against respondent with the Supreme Court on two causes of action: (a) the dishonor of respondents endorsement of Treasury Warrant No. B-02997354 amounting to Php2,177; and (b) nonpayment of debts amounting to Php11,000 which resulted from respondents issuance of checks that were subsequently dishonored because the account was closed; Respondent contended on the first allegation that it was petitioner who borrowed from him the amount of Php2,500 to which he issued the said Treasury Warrants and additional cash of Php323. On the second allegation he admitted that he issued undated checks in her favor and warned her that the checks belonged to the unused portion of a closed account and could not be encashed and that to protect himself, he asked petitioner to issue check amounting to Php11,000 to offset the borrowed checks. On 01 December 1972, the case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation. The case was heard on 22 January 1973 but was reset to 23 and 24 January 1973 due to respondents absence; On 24 January 1973, an ex-parte hearing was conducted. It was later scheduled on 27 February and 28 May but was postponed by respondent; On 14 September 1988, records of the case were forwarded to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. On 02 November 1988, a hearing was scheduled to which neither of the parties came; On 28 December 1988, IBP Commissioner submitted a decision declaring: (1) The issuance of the Treasury Warrants was an act of Lira, Inc. and not of respondent and (2) The issuance of the two checks was an act of connivance of the respondent with the petitioner to make use of useless commercial documents to deceive the public. The commission further stated that the act of the respondent as a lawyer is abhorrent and against exacting standards of morality and decency required of a member of the Bar. Respondent was recommended to be suspended for 3 months to take effect upon notice of the decision. The IBP Board of Governors increased the period from three to six months suspension; On 15 October 2002, IBP Director for Bar Discipline transmitted records of the case to the SC. On 8 July 2003, the office of the Bar Confidant filed a report attaching Resolution from the SC, indefinitely suspending respondent for having convicted by final judgment of estafa through falsification of commercial document; ISSUE: Whether or not issuance of useless commercial documents and falsification constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude? HELD: Issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, as the effect transcends the private interest of the parties directly involved in the transactionxxx Thus, the act of a person issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment is also a manifestation of moral turpitude. Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. xxxDisbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of crime involving moral turpitude, thus in the case of Jaramillo, by his conviction the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.