EN BANC
MAR YUSON, A.C. No. 6955
Complainant,
Present:
Panganiban, CJ,
Puno,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
- versus - Carpio Morales,
Callejo, Sr.,
Azcuna,
Tinga,
Chico-Nazario,
Garcia, and
Velasco, Jr., JJ
Promulgated:
ATTY.
JEREMIAS R. VITAN,
Respondent.
x -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- x
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
|
O |
nce again this
Court exhorts members of the bar to live up to the strictures of the Lawyers’
Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics. Otherwise, they shall be
sanctioned by this Court.
Before us is a Letter-Complaint[1]
for the disbarment of Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, filed
by Mar Yuson with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP). Respondent was accused of taking advantage of
complainant’s generosity and credulity.
On
Because respondent failed to submit his Answer within the given
period, the CBD considered his failure and non-appearance as a waiver of his
right to participate in the proceedings.[3] Thus, the hearing scheduled for
Respondent denied having received a copy of the Complaint against him
and alleged that it was only on
In its Resolution No. XVII-2005-101 dated
The Facts
Complainant Mar Yuson was a taxi driver with eight children. In October 2002, he received a sum of money
by way of inheritance. According to him,
he and his wife intended to use the money to purchase a taxi, repair their
dilapidated house, and hold a debut party for their daughter.[7]
They were able to purchase a secondhand taxi, and Atty. Vitan helped
him with all the legal matters concerning this purchase. Regrettably, their other plans were put on
hold, because the lawyer borrowed P100,000 from
them in
December 2002. It was agreed that the
loan would be repaid before the end of the following year,[8]
in time for the debut on
To guarantee
payment, respondent executed in favor of complainant several postdated checks
to cover the loaned amount. Those checks, however, turned out to be worthless,
because they had been drawn against the lawyer’s closed account in the Bank of
Commerce in Escolta,
Complainant
maintained that he had repeatedly tried to recover the debt, only to be turned
away empty-handed each time. He
conceded, though, that respondent had given an undisclosed amount covered by
the checks dated January and February 2003.[11] The amounts covered by the dishonored checks
remained unpaid.
This development
prompted complainant to seek the aid of the IBP National Committee on Legal Aid
(NCLA) in obtaining payment. On
When the date
passed without any payment, complainant demanded a collateral to secure the
loan. Thus, in his favor, Atty. Vitan executed a document denominated
as a Deed of Absolute
Curiously,
however, the parties executed a second
Deed of Absolute Sale,[17]
this time in favor of Atty. Vitan, with complainant as vendor. The purpose of
this particular document was not explained by either party.
On P30,000.[19] Contrary to their earlier agreement,
respondent did not redeem it from the mortgagee and, instead, simply sent
complainant a letter[20]
dated
On
On
Only after the
IBP investigating commissioner had rendered her Report and Recommendation[27]
did Atty. Vitan submit his Answer to the
Letter-Complaint. He called the second
document a “Counter Deed of Sale,” executed as a “sort of collateral/security
for the account of [his] liaison officer [Evelyn Estur].”[28] He admitted having given several postdated
checks amounting to P100,000, supposedly to guarantee the indebtedness
of Estur to complainant. Atty. Vitan argued for the first time that it
was she who had incurred the debts, and that he had acted only as a “character
reference and/or guarantor.”[29] He maintained that he had given in to the
one-sided transactions, because he was “completely spellbound by complainant’s
seeming sincerity and kindness.”[30] To corroborate his statements, he attached Estur’s Affidavit.[31]
Report of the
Investigating Commissioner
In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner San Juan recommended
that Atty. Vitan be suspended until his restitution
of the amount he had borrowed. She held
that respondent, having taken advantage of complainant and thus shown
dishonesty and untrustworthiness, did not deserve to retain his membership in
the bar.
On
The
Court’s Ruling
We agree with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but reduce
the period of suspension to six months.
Respondent’s
Administrative Liability
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. They are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of ethics,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In
this way, the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[32]
In the present case, Atty. Vitan
undoubtedly owed money to complainant. In a letter[33]
to IBP Deputy Director de la Cruz, respondent admitted having incurred the P100,000
loan. It was only in his Answer[34]
that the lawyer suddenly denied that he had personally incurred this
obligation. This time, he pointed to his
employee, Estur, as the true debtor. We
find his version of the facts implausible.
First, the story involving a certain
Evelyn Estur was clearly a mere afterthought, conjured simply to escape his
liability. If it were true that it was
she who owed the money, he should have mentioned this alleged fact in his
letter to the IBP NCLA deputy director.
Instead, respondent was completely silent about Estur
and merely asserted that he had already settled his debt with complainant.
Second, the promise of Atty. Vitan to settle his
obligations on particular dates is contained in two handwritten notes signed by
him and worded as follows:
“I undertake to settle the financial
obligations of P100,000 – plus before the end of the year.”[35]
“Mar:
“We will settle on
The wordings of these promissory notes disclose that he had a
personal obligation to complainant, without any mention of Estur
at all. If it were true that Atty. Vitan
had executed those notes for the account of his liaison officer, he should have
used words to that effect. As a lawyer,
he was aware that the preparation of promissory notes was not a “mere
formality;” it had legal
consequences. It is quite far-fetched
for a lawyer to assume the role of guarantor, without saying so in the notes.
A lawyer may be disciplined
for evading the payment of a debt validly incurred.[37] In this case, the failure of Atty. Vitan to pay his debt for over three years despite repeated
demands puts in question his standing as a member of the bar. Worse, he made several promises to pay his
debt promptly, but reneged on all of them.
He even started to hide from complainant according to the latter .[38]
Failure to honor just debts, particularly from clients, constitutes
dishonest conduct that does not speak well of a member of the bar.[39] It is vital that a lawyer’s conduct be kept
beyond reproach and above suspicion at all times. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility clearly provides that lawyers must not engage in unlawful,
immoral or deceitful conduct. They must
comport themselves in a manner that will secure and preserve the respect and
confidence of the public for the legal profession.[40]
Atty. Vitan contends that his obligation
was already extinguished, because he had allegedly sold his Bulacan property to
complainant.[41] Basically, respondent is asserting that what
had transpired was a dation in payment. Governed by the law on sales, it is a
transaction that takes place when a piece of property is alienated to the
creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money.[42] It involves delivery and transmission of
ownership of a thing -- by the debtor to the creditor -- as an accepted
equivalent of the performance of the obligation.[43]
Going over the records of this case, we find the contention of Atty. Vitan undeserving of credence. The records reveal that he did not really
intend to sell and relinquish ownership over his property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, notwithstanding the execution of a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of complainant.
The second Deed of
Absolute Sale, which reconveyed the property to
respondent, is proof that he had no such intention. This second Deed, which he referred to as his
“safety net,”[44]
betrays his intention to counteract the effects of the first one .
In a manner of speaking, Atty. Vitan was taking back with his right
hand what he had given with his left.
The second Deed of
Absolute Sale returned the parties right back where they started, as if there
were no sale in favor of complainant to begin with. In effect, on the basis of the second Deed of Sale, respondent took
back and asserted his ownership over the property despite having allegedly sold
it. Thus, he fails to convince us that
there was a bona fide dation in payment or sale that took place between the
parties; that is, that there was an extinguishment of obligation.
It appears that the true intention of the parties was to use the
Bulacan property to facilitate
payment. They only made it appear that
the title had been transferred to complainant to authorize him to sell or mortgage the property.[45] Atty. Vitan himself
admitted in his letter dated
We hasten to add, however, that this administrative case is not the
proper venue for us to determine the extent of the remaining liability. This Court will not act as a collection
agency from faltering debtors, when the amount of the indebtedness is
indefinite and disputed.[47]
Nevertheless, the records satisfactorily reveal the failure of respondent
to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the Lawyer’s
Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional
Ethics, thereby degrading not only his person but his profession as well. So far, we find that his lack of sincerity in
fulfilling his obligations is revealed by his acts of issuing promissory notes
and reneging on them; executing a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale; and breaking
his promise to redeem the property from the mortgagee.
The repeated failure of Atty. Vitan to
fulfill his promise puts in question his integrity and character. Indeed, not only his integrity as an
individual but, more important, his stature as a member of the bar is affected
by his acts of welching on his promises and
misleading complainant. Canon 1 and Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly state thus:
“CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
processes.
“Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
Any wrongdoing, whether professional or nonprofessional, indicating
unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary action.[48]
There is yet another reason to find Atty. Vitan
administratively liable. In his letter
of
The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to
cover them -- or, worse, drawn against a closed account --constitutes such
willful dishonesty and unethical conduct as to undermine the public confidence
in the law and in lawyers.[50]
The act also
manifests a low regard for the Oath taken by the lawyer upon joining the
profession, whose image should be held in high esteem, not seriously and
irreparably tarnished.[51]
Moreover, the inimical effect of the issuance of worthless checks has
been recognized by this Court in an earlier case, from which we quote:
“[T]he effect [of
issuance of worthless checks] transcends the private interests of the parties
directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community
at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder,
but also an injury to the public since the circulation of valueless commercial
papers can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the
banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public
interest.”[52]
We have also held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and
the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct,[53]
for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year’s suspension from the
practice of law,[54]
or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.[55]
In the instant case, complainant himself admits that respondent had
already paid the amounts covered by the January and February checks.[56] Thus, there has been a partial payment that
justifies a modification of IBP’s recommended penalty.
WHEREFORE, Atty.
Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby found guilty of gross
misconduct and SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for six (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this
Decision, with the warning that a repetition of the same or any other
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in respondent’s record as a
member of the Bar, and notice served on the Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
W E C O N C U R:
|
REYNATO S.
PUNO |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate
Justice |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
RENATO C. CORONA |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
DANTE O. TINGA |
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR |
|
|||||||||
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
[3] IBP Report, p. 3.
[4]
See rollo, pp. 23-24.
[5]
Annex “A” of the IBP Board of
Governors’ Resolution; rollo, unnumbered.
[6] Rollo, pp. 24-31.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
See notation “rec’d
[14]
Rollo, p. 2.
[15] According to complainant, their agreement was as follows:
“Noong Enero 2004 ay binigay niya [respondent] sa kin ang
titulo ng isang pirasong lupa sa Sta. Maria Bulacan at napagkasunduan naming na
ipangalan pansamantala sa pangalan ko upang aking mai-benta o kaya ay maisanla
at siya ang tutubos bilang partial payment o kabayaran at kung siya naman ang
may buyer ay kaagad kong dadalhin sa kanya ang titulo at kaliwaan kami sa
bayaran.” (Letter-Complaint, p. 2; rollo, p. 2).
[16]
Rollo, p. 2.
[17]
[18]
More precisely, complainant
alleges: “[N]apilitan po
ako na isanla an[g] nasabing titulo sa isang kakilala na nagpapa ‘5-6’ x x x sa
halagang P30,000.00 na may tubong P6,000 sa buwan-buwan at sa
loob lamang ng dalawang buwan, x x x.” (Letter-Complaint, p. 2; rollo,
p. 2).
[19]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] See Respondent’s Urgent Motion to Revive/Re-Open and with Leave to Admit Attached Answer; rollo, pp. 24-31.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
Lao v. Medel, 405 SCRA 227,
[33]
Rollo, p. 11.
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
Grande v. De Silva, 407
SCRA 310,
[38]
Rollo, p. 3.
[39]
Constantino v. Saludares, 228
SCRA 233,
[40]
Constantino v. Saludares, supra.
[41]
Rollo, p. 11.
[42] Civil Code, Art. 1245.
[43]
Philippine National Bank v. Pineda, 197 SCRA 1,
[44]
Rollo, p. 29.
[45]
[46]
[47]
See In Re: Complaint for Failure to
Pay Just Debts against Esther T. Andres, 452 SCRA 654,
[48]
Grande v. De Silva, supra note 35.
[49]
Rollo, p. 11.
[50]
Barrios v.
[51]
Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, 437 SCRA 209,
[52]
Moreno v. Araneta, 457 SCRA 329, 337,
[53]
Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, supra note 49.
[54]
Lao v. Medel, supra note 30.
[55]
Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, supra note 49.
[56]
Rollo, p. 2.