Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82555:56417&catid=1577&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:52:10+00:00

Document:
A.C. No. 10050, December 03, 2013 - VICTORIA C. HEENAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO, Respondent.
VICTORIA C. HEENAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO, Respondent.
This resolves the administrative complaint filed by Victoria Heenan (Victoria) against Atty. Erlinda Espejo (Atty. Espejo) before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of lawyer’s oath, docketed as CBD Case No. 10-2631.
Sometime in January 2009, Victoria met Atty. Espejo through her godmother, Corazon Eusebio (Corazon). Following the introduction, Corazon told Victoria that Atty. Espejo was her lawyer in need of money and wanted to borrow two hundred fifty thousand pesos (PhP 250,000) from her (Victoria). Shortly thereafter, Victoria went to the house of Corazon for a meeting with Atty. Espejo where they discussed the terms of the loan. Since Atty. Espejo was introduced to her as her godmother’s lawyer, Victoria found no reason to distrust the former. Hence, during the same meeting, Victoria agreed to accomodate Atty. Espejo and there and then handed to the latter the amount of PhP 250,000. To secure the payment of the loan, Atty. Espejo simultaneously issued and turned over to Victoria a check1 dated February 2, 2009 for two hundred seventy-five thousand pesos (PhP 275,000) covering the loan amount and agreed interest.
On due date, Atty. Espejo requested Victoria to delay the deposit of the check for the reason that she was still waiting for the release of the proceeds of a bank loan to fund the check. However, after a couple of months of waiting, Victoria received no word from Atty. Espejo as to whether or not the check was already funded enough.
In July 2009, Victoria received an Espejo-issued check dated July 10, 2009 in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (PhP 50,000)2 representing the interest which accrued due to the late payment of the principal obligation. Victoria deposited the said check but, to her dismay, the check bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Atty. Espejo failed to pay despite Victoria’s repeated demands.
Worried that she would not be able to recover the amount thus lent, Victoria decided to deposit to her account the first check in the amount of PhP 275,000, but without notifying Atty. Espejo of the fact. However, the said check was also dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
Victoria thereafter filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Espejo before the CBD.
On March 1, 2010, the CBD, through Director for Bar Discipline Alicia A. Risos-Vidal, issued an Order8 directing Atty. Espejo to submit her Answer to Victoria’s administrative complaint failing which would render her in default. The warning, notwithstanding, Atty. Espejo did not submit any Answer.
The failure of a lawyer to answer the complaint for disbarment despite due notice and to appear on the scheduled hearings set, shows his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrates his deficiency for his oath of office as a lawyer, which deserves disciplinary sanction.
Moreover, respondent[’s] acts of issuing checks with insufficient funds and despite repeated demands [she] failed to comply with her obligation and her disregard and failure to appear for preliminary investigation and to submit her counter-affidavit to answer the charges against her for Estafa and Violation of BP 22, constitute grave misconduct that also warrant disciplinary action against respondent.
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in 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 applicable laws and rules, and considering respondent’s grave misconduct, Atty. Erlinda Espejo is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and Ordered to Return to complainant the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand (P250,000.00) Pesos within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice with legal interest reckoned from the time the demand was made.
We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its recommendation in part.
We have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem.
In Barrios v. Martinez, we disbarred the respondent who issued worthless checks for which he was convicted in the criminal case filed against him.
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
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.
Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICES AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
We find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years, as recommended by the IBP, commensurate under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Erlinda B. Espejo GUILTY of gross misconduct and of violating Canons 1, 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We SUSPEND respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years, effective immediately.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave.
1Rollo, p. 34. The Real Bank Check No. 3026852, Annex “A” of Victoria C. Heenan’s Position Paper.
2 Id. at 35. The Real Bank Check No. 3152815, Annex “B” of Victoria C. Heenan’s Position Paper.
3 Id. at 36. Annex “C” of Victoria C. Heenan’s Position Paper.
16Lao v. Medel, A.C. No. 5916, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 227.
17 A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006, 483 SCRA 154, 159-160.
18Lao v. Medel, supra note 16, at 233.
19Wilkie v. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 1, 8, 10.
20 A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 402, 408.
21Roa v. Moreno, A.C. No. 8232, April 21, 2010, 618 SCRA 693, 700.
22Ronquillo v. Cezar, A.C. No. 6288, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 1, 8.

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