Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84233:59854&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:01:11+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015 - ANTONINA S. SOSA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, Respondent.
ANTONINA S. SOSA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA, Respondent.
Atty. Mendoza failed to comply with his obligation on due date. Upon demand to pay, he requested Ms. Sosa not to deposit the postdated check. She acceded and deferred the deposit of the check based on Atty. Mendoza’s promise that he would later pay. The check was subsequently returned/dishonored after Ms. Sosa finally deposited it sometime in October 2006; it was “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds.” Ms. Sosa then obtained the services of a lawyer, Atty. Ernesto V. Cabrera (Atty. Cabrera), to legally address Atty. Mendoza’s failure to pay.
On January 11, 2010, Atty. Cabrera sent a letter7 to Atty. Mendoza demanding payment of the loan plus interest and collection charges. Atty. Mendoza ignored the demand letter despite receipt, as proven by the Registry Receipt and Registry Return Receipt.8 Likewise, he did not, in any manner, contact Ms. Sosa to explain why he failed to pay.
On July 4, 2012, Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamor issued the Notice of Mandatory Conference/Hearing scheduled on August 16, 2012.
When the case was called for hearing, only Atty. Cabrera appeared. Atty. Cabrera marked the complainant’s documentary exhibits and the mandatory conference was subsequently declared terminated. The parties were then directed to submit their respective verified position papers, documentary exhibits and/or affidavits of their witnesses, if any, within fifteen (15) days.
In her position paper,13 Ms. Sosa reiterated her allegations in her Complaint-Affidavit. She argued that Atty. Mendoza is liable not only administratively but also civilly.
Atty. Mendoza, in his Manifestation,14admitted that (i) he arrived late during the scheduled hearing; (ii) he had on hand Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00); (iii) he was advised by the Hearing Officer to communicate with the complainant’s counsel; and (iv) the validity of his obligation and that he has to pay the same.
The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Mendoza liable not only administratively but also civilly. He gave credence to Ms. Sosa’s allegations that Atty. Mendoza failed to pay the loan despite Ms. Sosa’s attempts to collect. He also took notice of Atty. Mendoza’s admission that the obligation is valid.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner x x x finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering that [the respondent] is guilty of misconduct for his failure to pay a just and valid debt, Atty. Manuel V. Mendoza is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months and Ordered to Return the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) to [the complainant] with legal interest.
We adopt with modification the findings and recommendation of the IBP.
The facts of the case show that Atty. Mendoza engaged in improper or wrong conduct, as found under Rule 1.01, as the failure to pay the loan was willful in character and implied a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment.
Also undisputed is the fact that Ms. Sosa tried to collect the amount due upon maturity but Atty. Mendoza failed to pay. In fact, Ms. Sosa deferred depositing the postdated check upon Atty. Mendoza’s request, and based on his promises that he would pay. Despite all these, he still failed to comply with his obligation. Worse, the check – when finally deposited – was dishonored, a fact that Atty. Mendoza did not dispute.
Atty. Mendoza further claimed he had P600,000.00 on hand during the hearing with the IBP Investigating Officer.21 He allegedly failed to deliver the amount to Ms. Sosa or her counsel because he arrived late.
It is unclear to us why Atty. Mendoza ignored Ms. Sosa’s request for settlement after claiming that he already had the needed funds. He was either lying he had the money, or had no intention of paying in the first place. Atty. Mendoza was also not candid with the IBP Investigating Officer when he claimed he had P600,000.00 and that he was ready to pay his obligation. What is clear is that his obligation remains outstanding after all these years.
[A] lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness and candor. To this end nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
While we agree with the punishment meted out by the IBP, we differ with its recommendation ordering Atty. Mendoza to pay the amount of the loan plus legal interest.
We take exception to the IBP’s order to pay only because the case before us is solely an administrative complaint for disbarment and is not a civil action for collection of a sum of money. The quantum of evidence in these two types of cases alone deters us from agreeing with the IBP’s order to pay; the administrative complaint before us only requires substantial evidence to justify a finding of liability, while a civil action requires greater evidentiary standard of preponderance of evidence.
We note that as in the facts of the present case, the respondent-lawyer in the Heenan case also did not deny the validity of her loan nor did she proffer any reason for issuing unfunded checks.
As a final note, we understand the frustration of, and sympathize with Ms. Sosa in her present situation. However, because the matter before us is not a civil action for the collection money, we cannot order Atty. Mendoza to pay his outstanding loan. We can only clarify that our ruling in this case is without prejudice to any future civil or criminal action that Ms. Sosa, if she so decides, may file against Atty. Mendoza in the future. Our action likewise is without prejudice to any action we may take that is not based on the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year for violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility with a STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
Del Castillo, Mendoza, Perlas-Bernabe,** and Leonen, JJ., concur.
* Designated as Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1955 dated March 23, 2015.
** Designated as Acting Member vice Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, per Special Order No. 1956 dated March 23, 2015.
13 Records of the case (CBD No. 12-3468), pp. 4-11; rollo unpaged.
14 Id. at 23-24; rollo unpaged.
15 Id. at 26-28; rollo unpaged.
16Tomlin II v. Atty. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325 (2006).
17Grande v. Atty. de Silva, 455 Phil. 1 (2003).
18Santos, Sr. v. Atty. Beltran, 463 Phil. 372 (2003), citing Spouses Whitson v. Atienza, 457 Phil. 11 (2003).
20 Records of the case (CBD No. 12-3468), p. 23; rollo unpaged.
23 650 Phil. 225, 230 (2010). See also Lao v. Atty. Medel, 453 Phil. 115 (2003).
26Constantino v. Atty. Saludares, A.C. No. 2029, December 7, 1993, 228 SCRA 233.
29Tajan v. Cusi, 156 Phil. 128, 134 (1978).
30Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco, A.C. No. 5355, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 103.
31Anacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074, August 14, 2012, 678 SCRA 352, 355.
32Barrientos v. Atty. Libiran-Meteoro, 480 Phil. 661 (2004) and Yuhico v. Atty. Gutierrez, supra note 23.
33 A.C. No. 10050, December 3, 2013, 711 SCRA 290.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.