Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
EUGENIA MENDOZA, |
|
A.C.
No. 5338 |
|
Complainant, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C.J., |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
CARPIO
MORALES, |
|
|
|
TINGA, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
VELASCO, Jr., |
|
|
|
NACHURA, |
|
|
|
DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BRION, and |
|
|
|
PERALTA, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
February
23, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PER
CURIAM:
Any departure from the path which a lawyer must
follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by
this Court as the disciplining authority for there is perhaps no profession
after that of the sacred ministry in which a high-toned morality is more
imperative than that of law.[1]
Before the Court
is the Petition filed by Eugenia Mendoza (complainant) dated
Complainant, a
mail sorter at the Central Post Office Manila, averred that: On P20,000.00
payable in six months at 20% interest, secured by 12 blank checks, with numbers
47253, 47256 to 47266, drawn against the Postal Bank. Although she was unable to faithfully pay her
obligations on their due dates, she made remittances, however, to respondent's
Metrobank account from P12,910.00.[2] Claiming that the amounts remitted were not
enough to cover the penalties, interests and other charges, respondent warned
complainant that he would deposit Postal Check No. 47253 filled up by him on P16,000.00. Afraid that
respondent might sue her in court, complainant made good said check and
respondent was able to encash the same on P35,690.00.[4]
Complainant
further claimed that, later, respondent filled up two of the postal checks she
issued in blank, Check Nos. 47261 and 47262 with the amount of P50,000.00
each and with the dates January 15, 2000 and January 20, 2000 respectively,
which respondent claims was in exchange for the P100,000.00 cash that
complainant received on November 15, 1999.
Complainant insisted however that she never borrowed P100,000.00
from respondent and that it was unlikely that respondent would lend her, a mail
sorter with a basic monthly salary of less than P6,000.00, such
amount. Complainant also claimed that
respondent victimized other employees of the Postal Office by filling up,
without authorization, blank checks issued to him as condition for loans.[5]
In his Comment
dated P100,000.00 and covered by
two checks which bounced for the reason “account closed”; the October 13, 1999
transaction was a separate and distinct transaction; complainant filed the
disbarment case against him to get even with him for filing the estafa and B.P.
Blg. 22 case against the former; complainant's claim that respondent filled up
the blank checks issued by complainant is a complete lie; the truth was that
the checks referred to were already filled up when complainant affixed her
signature thereto; it was unbelievable that complainant would issue blank
checks, and that she was a mere low-salaried employee, since she was able to
maintain several checking accounts; and if he really intended to defraud
complainant, he would have written a higher amount on the checks instead of
only P50,000.00.[6]
The case was
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[7] (IBP),
and the parties were required to file their position papers.[8]
In her Position
Paper, complainant, apart from reiterating her earlier claims, alleged that
respondent, after the hearing on the disbarment case before the IBP on
September 5, 2001, again filled up three of her blank checks, Check Nos. 47263,
47264 and 47265, totaling P100,000.00, to serve as basis for another
criminal complaint, since the earlier estafa and B.P. Blg. 22 case filed by
respondent against her before the Office of the Prosecutor of Pasig City was
dismissed on August 14, 2000.[9]
Respondent
insisted in his Position Paper, however, that complainant borrowed P100,000.00
in exchange for two postdated checks, and that since he had known complainant
for quite some time, he accepted said checks on complainant's assurance that
they were good as cash.[10]
Investigating
Commissioner Wilfredo E.J.E. Reyes submitted his Report dated
On
After hearings
were conducted,[15] Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa
submitted his Report dated
Commissioner
Funa held that while it was difficult at first to determine who between complainant
and respondent was telling the truth, in the end, respondent himself, with his
own contradicting allegations, showed that complainant's version should be
given more credence.[17]
Commissioner
Funa noted that although complainant's total obligation to respondent was only P24,000.00,
since the loan obtained by complainant on P20,000.00 at 20%
interest payable in six months, by P30,240.00. Thus, even though the payment
was irregularly given, respondent actually earned more than the agreed upon 20%
interest. Moreover, the amounts of P50,000.00
as well as the name of the payee in the subject checks were all typewritten[18]
Commissioner
Funa also gave credence to complainant's claim that it was respondent's modus
operandi to demand a certain amount as “settlement” for the dropping of
estafa complaints against his borrowers.
As Commissioner Funa explains:
[A] complaint for estafa/violation of BP 22 was
filed against [complainant] before the Prosecutor's Office in P100,000.00 corresponding to
another three checks, Check Nos. 0047263, 0047264 and 0047265.
Furthermore, Respondent filed another criminal
complaint for estafa/violation of BP 22 dated
x x x x
Respondent's version, on the other hand, is that
Check Nos. 0047261 and 0047262 were given to him for loans (rediscounting)
contacted on P100,000.00 for which Complainant allegedly issued the
following Postal Bank checks [Check No. 0047263 dated May 16, 2001 for P20,000.00;
Check No. 0047264 dated May 30, 2001 for P30,000.00 and Check No.
0047265 dated June 15, 2001 for P50,000.00].
x x x x
Oddly though, Respondent never narrated that
Complainant obtained a second loan on
More telling, and this is where Respondent gets
caught, are the circumstances attending this second loan of
More importantly, and this is where Respondent
commits his fatal blunder thus exposing his illegal machinations,
Complainant allegedly received P100,000.00 in cash on P100,000.00. The checks were supposedly dated
Now then, would not Respondent suffer a financial
loss if he gave away P100,000.00 on P100,000.00
on P130,000.00. And yet the checks he
filled up totaled only P100,000.00.
The same is true in re-discounting a check. If Complainant gave Respondent P100,000.00
in checks, Respondent should be giving Complainant an amount less than P100,000.00. This exposes his story as a fabrication.
The same observations can be made of the first
loan of P100,000.00 secured by Check Nos. 0047261 and 0047262.
More strangely, during the course of the entire
investigation, Respondent never touched on what transpired on the dates of
November 15 and 16, 1999. Consider that
Complainant's position is that no such transaction took place on November 15
and 16. And yet, Respondent never made
any effort to establish that Complainant borrowed P100,000.00 on
November 15 and then another P100,000.00 again on November 16. Respondent merely focused on establishing
that Complainant's checks bounced --- a fact already admitted several times by
the Complainant --- and the reasons for which were already explained by
Complainant. This only shows the lack of
candor of Respondent.[19]
x x x x
We take note further that Complainant is a mere
mail sorter earning less than P6,000.00 per month. Who would lend P200,000.00 to an
employee earning such a salary, nowadays, and not even secure such a loan with
a written document or a collateral? It
defies realities of finance, economy and business. It even defies common sense.[20]
Commissioner
Funa also took note that the instant case had practically the same set of facts
as in Olbes v. Deciembre[21] and Acosta
v. Deciembre.[22] In Olbes, complainants therein, who
were also postal employees, averred that respondent without authority filled up
a total of four checks to represent a total of P200,000.00. In Acosta, the complainant therein,
another postal employee, averred that respondent filled up two blank checks for
a total of P100,000.00. Acosta,
however, was dismissed by Commissioner Lydia Navarro on the ground that it did
not involve any lawyer-client relationship, which ground, Commissioner Funa
believes, is erroneous.[23]
On
RESOLUTION NO. XVII-2007-219
Adm. Case No. 5338
Eugenia Mendoza vs.
Atty. Victor V. Deciembre
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part
of this Resolution as Annex “A”; and, finding the recommendation fully
supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and
considering Respondent's gross misconduct and for practically found guilty of
committing the same set of facts alleged in AC 5365, Atty. Victor V. Deciembre
is hereby SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY from the practice of law to be served
successively after the lifting of Respondent's Indefinite Suspension.[24]
Although no
motion for reconsideration was filed before the IBP Board of Governors, nor a
petition for review before this Court as reported by IBP and Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Court considers the IBP Resolution merely recommendatory and
therefore would not attain finality, pursuant to par. (b), Section 12, Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court. The IBP
elevated to this Court the entire records of the case for appropriate action.
The Court agrees
with the findings of the IBP, but finds that disbarment and not just indefinite
suspension is in order.
The practice of
law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who
show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by
law for the conferment of such privilege.[25] A high sense of morality, honesty and fair
dealing is expected and required of members of the bar.[26] They
must conduct themselves with great propriety, and their behavior must be beyond
reproach anywhere and at all times.[27]
The fact that
there is no attorney-client relationship in this case and the transactions
entered into by respondent were done in his private capacity cannot shield
respondent, as a lawyer, from liability.
A lawyer may be
disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend
to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable
opinion of the public.[28] Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his
professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an
attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.[29]
In this case,
evidence abounds that respondent has failed to live up to the standards
required of members of the legal profession.
Specifically, respondent has transgressed provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, to wit:
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.
x x x x
CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
x x x x
Rule 7.03.
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
As correctly
observed by IBP Investigating Commissioner Funa, respondent failed to mention
in his Comment dated January 18, 2000, in his Position Paper dated October 8,
2001 and in his Motion for Reconsideration dated December 20, 2002, the P100,000.00
loan which complainant supposedly contracted on November 16, 1999. It is also
questionable why the checks dated May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001
which were supposedly issued to secure a loan contracted about 18 months
earlier, i.e. P100,000.00, which were
supposed to secure a loan contracted on
The Court also
notes that the checks being refuted by complainant, dated January 15 and 20,
2000, May 16, 2001, May 30, 2001 and June 15, 2001[30] had its
dates, amounts and payee's name all typewritten, while the blanks on the check
for P16,000.00 dated March 30, 1999 which complainant used to pay part
of her original loan, were all filled up in her handwriting.[31]
It is also observed
that the present case was not the only instance when respondent committed his
wrongful acts. In Olbes,[32]
complainants therein contracted a loan from respondent in the amount of P10,000.00
on P50,000.00
each with different dates of maturity and used the same in filing estafa and B.P.
Blg. 22 cases against complainants. The
Court, in imposing the penalty of indefinite suspension on respondent, found
his propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation as reprehensible and
his misuse of the filled up checks, loathsome.[33]
In Acosta,[34]
complainant therein also averred that on P20,000.00 from
respondent with an interest of 20% payable in six months and guaranteed by
twelve blank checks. Although she had
already paid the total amount of P33,300.00, respondent still demanded
payments from her, and for her failure to comply therewith, respondent filed a
case against her before the City Prosecutor of Marikina City, using two of her
blank checks which respondent filled up with the total amount of P100,000.00. Unfortunately, the complaint was dismissed by
IBP Investigating Commissioner Navarro on
As manifested by
these cases, respondent's offenses are manifold. First, he demands excessive payments from his
borrowers; then he fills up his borrowers' blank checks with fictitious
amounts, falsifying commercial documents for his material gain; and then he
uses said checks as bases for filing unfounded criminal suits against his
borrowers in order to harass them. Such
acts manifest respondent's perversity of character, meriting his severance from
the legal profession.
While the power
to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser
penalty could accomplish the end desired,[36] the
seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme
power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court
will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood
of lawyers where the evidence calls for it.[37] This is because in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account
for his actuations as an officer of the Court, with the end in view of
preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the
duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.[38]
As respondent's
misconduct brings intolerable dishonor to the legal profession, the severance
of his privilege to practice law for life is in order.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Victor
V. Deciembre is hereby found GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT and VIOLATION of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is DISBARRED from the
practice of law and his name is ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys
effective immediately.
Let copies of
this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant which shall
forthwith record it in the personal files of respondent; all the courts of the
Philippines; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which shall disseminate
copies thereof to all its Chapters; and all administrative and quasi-judicial
agencies of the Republic of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
(On official leave)
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
(On
official leave)
|
Dante o. tinga Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
(On official leave)
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
[1] Radjaie
v. Alovera, 392 Phil. 1, 17
(2000).
[2] P1,150.00
on November 11, 1998; P1, 300.00 on December 11, 1998; P2,100.00
on January 12, 1999; P 500.00 on January 13, 1999; P3,930.00 on
February 15, 1999; and P3,930.00 on March 15, 1999.
[3] P1,330.00
on April 13, 1999; P1,330.00 on May 12, 1999; P1,330.00 on July
13, 1999; P1,460.00 on September
23, 1999, and P1,330.00 on October 15, 1999.
[4] Rollo,
pp. 1-4.
[5] Rollo,
p. 6.
[6]
[7] Per
Resolution dated
[8]
[9] Rollo,
pp. 67-71.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] On
August 2, 2004, September 9, 2004, September 24, 2004, January 27, 2005, June
28, 2005, January 10, 2006 and November 17, 2006.
[16] Rollo,
pp. 1006, 1019.
[17] Rollo,
p. 1007.
[18]
[19] Rollo,
pp. 1010-1014.
[20]
[21] A.C.
No. 5365,
[22] A.C.
No. 5376.
[23] Rollo,
pp. 1017-1018.
[24] Rollo, p. 998.
[25] Yap-Paras
v. Paras, A.C. No. 4947,
[26] Tejada
v. Palaña, A.C. No. 7434,
[27] Sanchez
v. Somoso, 459 Phil. 209, 212
(2003).
[28] Paras
v. Paras, supra. note 25.
[29] Cojuangco,
Jr. v.
[30] Rollo,
pp. 92-93, 219-221.
[31]
[32] Olbes
v. Deciembre, supra note 21.
[33]
[34] Acosta
v. Deciembre, supra note 22.
[35] Rollo,
pp. 262-266.
[36] Dantes
v. Dantes, A.C. No. 6486.
[37] Ting-Dumali
v. Torres, A.C. No. 5161,
[38] Paras
v. Paras, supra note 25, at 201.