The Supreme Court’s decision in Nulada v. Paulma underscores the high ethical standards demanded of lawyers in the Philippines. The Court suspended Atty. Orlando S. Paulma from the practice of law for two years after he was convicted of violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), the law against issuing bouncing checks. This ruling serves as a reminder that lawyers are expected to uphold the law and maintain a high level of moral character, both in their professional and private lives, and failure to do so can result in disciplinary action.

When a Lawyer’s Check Bounces: Examining Moral Turpitude and Professional Responsibility

This case began when Alex Nulada filed a complaint against Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, citing dishonesty and conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Nulada alleged that Paulma issued a check for P650,000 as payment for a debt. However, the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite notice and repeated demands, Paulma failed to make good on the check, leading Nulada to file a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22.

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) found Paulma guilty and ordered him to pay a fine, the amount of the check, and other damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s decision. Prior to the RTC decision, Nulada filed an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court, leading to the present case. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended Paulma’s suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors later modified to a two-year suspension. The Supreme Court then had to decide whether Paulma should be disciplined for a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Supreme Court based its ruling on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the disbarment or suspension of attorneys for various reasons, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court also cited Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which mandates lawyers to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law. Rule 1.01 of the CPR specifically states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The lawyer’s oath requires attorneys to act as guardians of the law and instruments for the orderly administration of justice.

The Court emphasized that a lawyer can be disciplined for any conduct, whether professional or private, that renders them unfit to continue as an officer of the court. The issuance of worthless checks, the Court noted, demonstrates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed in them, showing a lack of honesty and good moral character. It constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, as highlighted in Wong v. Moya II, 590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008), which cited Cuizon v. Macalino, 477 Phil. 569, 575 (2004).

In the case of Enriquez v. De Vera, the Court discussed the purpose and nature of BP 22 violations in the context of administrative cases against lawyers:

[BP] 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined and punished by [BP] 22 [x x x] is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation; the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.

The Court noted that Paulma’s conviction for violating BP 22 had been definitively established and had become final. Therefore, he violated the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR. The Supreme Court referenced several similar cases where lawyers were suspended for issuing bouncing checks, including Heenan v. Espejo, A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio, Dizon v. De Taza, and Wong v. Moya II. In these cases, the erring lawyers were suspended for two years, the same penalty the Court deemed appropriate for Paulma.

The Court reiterated that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. Lawyers must observe the law and be mindful of their actions in both public and private capacities. Any transgression of this duty diminishes their reputation and erodes public faith in the legal profession. Paulma’s conduct fell short of the standards expected of him as a member of the bar.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Paulma should be administratively disciplined for being found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude, specifically violating BP 22 (issuing a bouncing check).
What is BP 22?	BP 22, or Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, is a Philippine law that penalizes the making or issuing of a check without sufficient funds or credit. It aims to protect the banking system and legitimate check users.
What is moral turpitude?	Moral turpitude generally refers to conduct that is considered immoral, dishonest, or unethical. It often involves acts that are contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals.
What is the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR)?	The CPR is a set of ethical rules that govern the conduct of lawyers in the Philippines. It outlines the duties and responsibilities of lawyers to the court, their clients, and the public.
What was the penalty imposed on Atty. Paulma?	Atty. Paulma was suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, effective upon his receipt of the Supreme Court’s Resolution.
Why was Atty. Paulma suspended?	He was suspended for violating the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as for being found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude.
What does the lawyer’s oath entail?	The lawyer’s oath requires attorneys to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves with all good fidelity to the courts and their clients.
Can a lawyer be disciplined for private conduct?	Yes, a lawyer can be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or private capacity, that renders them unfit to continue as an officer of the court.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and underscores that violating laws, even in their private capacity, can lead to disciplinary action.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nulada v. Paulma serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical obligations of lawyers in the Philippines. The Court’s consistent stance on maintaining the integrity of the legal profession ensures that lawyers are held accountable for their actions, both professionally and personally. This commitment reinforces the public’s trust in the legal system and the individuals who uphold it.

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: Alex Nulada, vs. Atty. Orlando S. Paulma, A.C. No. 8172, April 12, 2016