INTRODUCTION

Imagine a lawyer, respected in their field, suddenly facing disciplinary action not for courtroom missteps, but for actions taken in the business world. This scenario highlights a crucial aspect of legal ethics: a lawyer’s conduct, even outside the direct practice of law, must uphold the integrity of the profession. The case of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Atty. Dante A. Carandang delves into this very issue, questioning whether a lawyer can be sanctioned for issuing bouncing checks in his capacity as a corporate officer.

In this case, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Dante A. Carandang, president of Bingo Royale, Inc. The core issue stemmed from checks issued by Atty. Carandang on behalf of Bingo Royale to PAGCOR, which subsequently bounced due to a closed account. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine if this act constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary measures against Atty. Carandang as a member of the bar.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES AT PLAY

The crux of this case lies in the intersection of two key legal areas: the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or BP 22) and the ethical standards governing lawyers in the Philippines. BP 22 penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds, aiming to protect public confidence in negotiable instruments. Crucially, the law specifies that if a corporation issues a bouncing check, the person who signed the check on behalf of the corporation is held liable.

The Attorney’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility mandate that lawyers must uphold the law, act with integrity, and maintain the dignity of the legal profession. Canon 1 of the Code states, “A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” Rule 1.01 further clarifies, “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” These ethical obligations are not confined to a lawyer’s professional dealings but extend to their conduct in all spheres of life.

Previous Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as People v. Tañada, has emphasized that BP 22 is not merely about private transactions but about public order. The Court in Tañada stated, “The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment…The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order.” This underscores the societal impact of issuing bouncing checks, which affects not just the payee but the entire financial system.

CASE NARRATIVE: FROM BINGO ROYALE TO THE SUPREME COURT

The narrative begins with a business agreement. PAGCOR granted Bingo Royale, where Atty. Carandang was president, the authority to operate bingo games. A key term of this agreement was the remittance of 20% of Bingo Royale’s gross sales to PAGCOR.

Unfortunately, Bingo Royale fell into arrears, owing PAGCOR a significant sum. To settle this debt, Bingo Royale, through Atty. Carandang, agreed to an installment plan and issued 24 post-dated checks. This is where the trouble began. Upon presentment, all 24 checks bounced due to Bingo Royale’s account being closed.

Despite demand letters from PAGCOR, the amounts remained unpaid. PAGCOR then initiated criminal complaints for violation of BP 22 against Atty. Carandang and filed a disbarment complaint, arguing that issuing bouncing checks constituted serious misconduct and violated his ethical duties as a lawyer.

Atty. Carandang defended himself by claiming that he signed the checks as president of Bingo Royale, and this act was not related to his legal profession. He cited Bingo Royale’s financial difficulties as the reason for the dishonored checks and the subsequent bankruptcy of the company. He pleaded for leniency, arguing that the disbarment power should be exercised cautiously.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the complaint. Investigating Commissioner Atty. Doroteo B. Aguila found Atty. Carandang liable, stating, “Whether to issue or not checks in favor of a payee is a voluntary act. It is clearly a choice for an individual (especially one learned in the law)…to do so after assessing and weighing the consequences and risks for doing so.” The IBP Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension.

The IBP Board of Governors modified the recommendation, reducing the suspension to six months. The Board Resolution stated that Atty. Carandang violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in unlawful conduct.

The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings, emphasizing that even though Atty. Carandang signed the checks as a corporate officer, he was still bound by the ethical standards of the legal profession. The Court highlighted the public interest aspect of BP 22 violations, quoting People v. Tuanda: “The effects of the issuance of a worthless check 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.”

The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Carandang’s actions constituted serious misconduct, violating both the Attorney’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was found guilty and suspended from the practice of law for six months.

PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR LAWYERS AND THE PUBLIC

This case serves as a stark reminder that lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct, both professionally and personally. The ethical obligations of a lawyer are not shed when they step outside the courtroom or engage in business ventures. Issuing bouncing checks, even in a corporate capacity, can have serious repercussions for a lawyer’s career.

For businesses, this case underscores the importance of due diligence when accepting checks, especially from corporations. While BP 22 provides legal recourse, prevention is always better than cure. Ensuring the financial stability of the check issuer and verifying account status are prudent steps.

For lawyers in business, the lesson is clear: your actions in the business world reflect on your standing as a lawyer. Ethical conduct is not confined to legal practice; it is a hallmark of the profession that must be upheld at all times.

Key Lessons:

• Lawyerly Conduct Extends Beyond Legal Practice: A lawyer’s ethical duties are not limited to their professional roles but encompass all aspects of their life.
• Bouncing Checks are Serious Misconduct: Issuing bouncing checks, even without intent to defraud, is a violation of law and can lead to disciplinary action for lawyers.
• Corporate Officers Held Accountable: Signing checks on behalf of a corporation does not shield individuals from liability under BP 22, especially if they are lawyers.
• Uphold Public Trust: Lawyers must maintain the integrity and dignity of the legal profession by obeying the laws of the land and promoting respect for legal processes in all their endeavors.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: Can a lawyer be disciplined for actions outside their legal practice?

Yes, as this case demonstrates. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a lawyer’s misconduct, even in their private capacity, can be grounds for disciplinary action if it reflects poorly on their fitness to practice law and the integrity of the profession.

Q2: What is Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22)?

BP 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit. It aims to maintain public confidence in the banking system and commercial transactions involving checks.

Q3: Is intent to defraud required for a violation of BP 22?

No, intent to defraud is not an essential element of BP 22. The offense is committed by the mere act of issuing a bouncing check, regardless of intent.

Q4: What are the possible penalties for violating BP 22?

Penalties under BP 22 can include imprisonment, fines, or both. For lawyers, a violation can also lead to disciplinary action, such as suspension or even disbarment.

Q5: What is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)’s role in disciplinary cases?

The IBP is the national organization of lawyers in the Philippines. It plays a crucial role in investigating complaints against lawyers and recommending disciplinary actions to the Supreme Court.

Q6: What ethical rules did Atty. Carandang violate?

Atty. Carandang was found to have violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to obey the laws of the land and refrain from unlawful conduct. He also violated the Attorney’s Oath to uphold the law.

Q7: Why was Atty. Carandang suspended instead of disbarred?

The Supreme Court, following the IBP’s recommendation, deemed a six-month suspension appropriate in this case. Disbarment is typically reserved for more egregious misconduct. The suspension served as a sufficient sanction while acknowledging the circumstances of the case.

ASG Law specializes in legal ethics and professional responsibility, ensuring lawyers and law firms adhere to the highest standards of conduct. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.