FACTS: Respondent Fe T. Tuanda, a member of the Philippine
Bar, asks this Court to lift the suspension from the practice of law imposed
upon her by a decision of the Court of Appeals. In 1983, Atty. Fe Tuanda received from one
Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry with a total value of P36,000 for
sale on commission basis. In 1984, instead of returning the unsold pieces of
jewelry worth P26,250, she issued 3 checks. These checks were dishonored by the
drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding
receipt of the notice of dishonor, Tuanda made no effort to settle her
obligation. Criminal cases were filed, wherein she was acquitted of estafa but
was found guilty of violation of BP 22 (The Anti-Bouncing Check Law). The
appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court and imposed further
suspension against Tuanda in the practice of law, on the ground that the
offense involves moral turpitude. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court
for her suspension to be lifted arguing that her suspension was a penalty so
harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the aforementioned
law. Arguing further that she intends no damage to the plaintiff-appellee
(Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not the
suspension of Atty. Tuanda be lifted.
HELD:
NO. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which she
is found guilty involved moral turpitude. Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court provide as follows:
- Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Italics supplied)
- Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. — The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section, and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.
Conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude relates to and affects the good moral character of a
person convicted of such offense. Herein, BP 22 violation is a serious criminal
offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public order. The
effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interest of
parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the
community at large. Putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and
commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society
and the public interest. The crimes of which respondent was convicted also
import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility under both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the
land."
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the Motion
to Lift Order of Suspension. Respondent shall remain suspended from the
practice of law until further orders from this Court.
