In a disciplinary case, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension of Atty. Nicolas C. Torres for two years due to gross misconduct. The Court found him guilty of willful dishonesty and unethical conduct for failing to pay a debt of P2,200,000.00 and issuing checks without sufficient funds. This ruling reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers, emphasizing their duty to maintain honesty, integrity, and fairness in all dealings, including the prompt payment of financial obligations. The decision serves as a reminder that lawyers must uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes, both in their professional and personal lives.

Broken Promises: When a Lawyer’s Debt Leads to Disciplinary Action

The case of Estrella R. Sanchez v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres arose from a complaint filed by Sanchez against Atty. Torres for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) and failing to pay a debt. Sanchez claimed that she loaned Atty. Torres P2,200,000.00 in 2007, based on his promise to repay the amount within a month, plus interest. To secure the loan, Atty. Torres issued two Allied Bank checks totaling P2,200,000.00. However, when Sanchez deposited the checks a month later, they were returned due to “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Despite repeated demands, Atty. Torres failed to settle his obligation, leading Sanchez to seek legal assistance and file a formal complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD).

The IBP-CBD required Atty. Torres to file an answer to the complaint, but he repeatedly sought extensions of time, which he failed to comply with. He also failed to appear at the mandatory conference despite due notice. Consequently, the IBP-CBD found Atty. Torres guilty of willful dishonesty and unethical conduct, recommending a suspension from the practice of law for at least two years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation, ordering Atty. Torres to be suspended from the practice of law for two years and to return the amount of P2,200,000.00 to Sanchez, with legal interest. This decision was based on the evidence presented by Sanchez, including the bounced checks and Atty. Torres’ admission of the debt in a letter dated May 9, 2009.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, sustained the findings and recommendations of the IBP-CBD and the IBP-Board of Governors. The Court emphasized that the existence of the loan obligation was undisputed, with Sanchez providing sufficient evidence through the bank checks and Atty. Torres’ own admission of the debt. The Court noted that Atty. Torres failed to discharge his burden of proving that he had paid his obligation to Sanchez, relying only on belated and unsubstantiated claims of payment. The Court reiterated that a lawyer’s deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, warranting suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are expected to maintain high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity, and must faithfully perform their duties to society, the bar, the courts, and their clients, including the prompt payment of financial obligations.

The Supreme Court referenced the case of Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, where it held:

“…[the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.”

Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly state:

Canon 1— A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court also highlighted Atty. Torres’ conduct during the proceedings, noting his repeated requests for extensions of time to file an answer and a motion for reconsideration, which he ultimately failed to submit. His failure to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the IBP further demonstrated his disregard for the lawful orders of the court and his oath of office. Citing Ngayan v. Tugade, the Court emphasized that a lawyer’s failure to answer a complaint and appear at investigations constitutes a flouting resistance to lawful orders and illustrates a disregard for the oath of office, violating Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court considered similar cases, such as Lao v. Medel and Rangwani v. Atty. Dino, where lawyers were suspended for one year for deliberately failing to pay just debts and issuing worthless checks. However, following the precedent set in A-1 Financial Services v. Valerio, the Court deemed it proper to impose a two-year suspension, considering the amount involved and Atty. Torres’ blatant disregard for the IBP-CBD’s orders. Despite this, the Court clarified that it could not sustain the IBP’s recommendation to order Atty. Torres to return the P2,200,000.00 to Sanchez, as disciplinary proceedings against lawyers focus solely on whether the officer of the court is still fit to practice law, and findings have no bearing on other judicial actions the parties may choose to file against each other.

The Court, however, acknowledged that in CF Sharp Crew management, Inc. v. Nicolas C. Torres, Atty. Torres had already been disbarred from the practice of law for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Given this prior disbarment, the Court recognized that it could no longer impose the penalty of suspension or disbarment, as there are no double or multiple disbarments under Philippine law or jurisprudence. Nonetheless, the Court deemed it proper to resolve the instant case and impose its corresponding penalty for recording it in Atty. Torres’ personal file in the Bar Confidant’s Office, considering that the issues and infraction committed were different from his previous infraction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Nicolas C. Torres should be disciplined for failing to pay a debt and issuing checks without sufficient funds. The case examined if these actions constituted gross misconduct warranting suspension from the practice of law.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s decision finding Atty. Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, although this penalty could not be enforced due to a prior disbarment.
Why was Atty. Torres initially suspended?	Atty. Torres was suspended for willful dishonesty and unethical conduct, stemming from his failure to pay a debt of P2,200,000.00 and the issuance of checks that were dishonored due to a closed account. These actions were deemed a violation of the ethical standards expected of lawyers.
What is the significance of issuing worthless checks?	Issuing worthless checks is considered gross misconduct for lawyers, as it reflects poorly on their honesty, integrity, and adherence to the law. It undermines the public’s trust in the legal profession and violates the Code of Professional Responsibility.
What ethical rules did Atty. Torres violate?	Atty. Torres violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate that lawyers uphold the law, promote respect for legal processes, and refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The lawyer also violated his oath of office.
Could the Supreme Court enforce the suspension?	No, the Supreme Court could not enforce the suspension because Atty. Torres had already been disbarred in a separate case. Philippine law does not allow for double or multiple disbarments.
What was the basis of the IBP’s decision?	The IBP based its decision on the evidence presented by the complainant, including the dishonored checks and Atty. Torres’ admission of the debt in a letter. The IBP also considered Atty. Torres’ failure to file an answer to the complaint and his absence from the mandatory conference.
What happens to the record of this case?	The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. Torres’ personal record as a member of the Bar. This ensures that the disciplinary action is documented for future reference.

This case underscores the importance of ethical conduct for lawyers and the consequences of failing to meet those standards. While the suspension could not be enforced due to a prior disbarment, the decision serves as a reminder to all members of the bar of their duty to uphold the law, maintain honesty and integrity, and fulfill their obligations, both professional and personal.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES, M.D., 58632