For issuing bouncing check and for failure to pay debt, lady lawyer suspended.

 

 

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

 

 

EN BANC

 

A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,                 Complainant,                   - versus -               ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO,           Respondent.

A.C. No. 8390 [Formerly CBD 06-1641]   Present:   CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, DE CASTRO, BRION,* PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, and MENDOZA, JJ.   Promulgated:   July 2, 2010

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 

D E C I S I O N

 

 

PERALTA, J.:

 

 

 

X x x.

 

    

In Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, we held that:

 

x x x [the] deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system. They are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:

 

Canon 1— A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

 

Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

    In the instant case, there is no denial of the existence of the loan obligation despite respondent's failure to cooperate before any proceedings in relation to the complaint. Prior to the filing of the complaint against her, Atty. Valerio's act of making partial payments of the loan and interest suffices as proof that indeed there is an obligation to pay on her part. Respondent's mother, Mrs. Valerio, likewise, acknowledged her daughter's obligation.

 

    The Court, likewise, finds unmeritorious Mrs. Valerio's justification that her daughter, Atty. Valerio, is suffering from a health condition, i.e.
schizophrenia, which has prevented her from properly answering the complaint against her. Indeed, we cannot take the "medical certificate" on its face, considering Mrs. Valerio's failure to prove the contents of the certificate or present the physician who issued it.

 

    Atty. Valerio's conduct in the course of the IBP and court proceedings is also a matter of serious concern. She failed to answer the complaint against her. Despite due notice, she failed to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the court as she likewise failed to both answer the complaint against her and appear during her arraignment, despite orders and notices from the court. Clearly, this conduct runs counter to the precepts of the Code of Professional Responsibility and violates the lawyer's oath which imposes upon every member of the Bar the duty to delay no man for money or malice. Atty. Valerio has failed to live up to the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

 

    In Ngayan v. Tugade, we ruled that "[a lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

 

We come to the penalty imposable in this case.

 

In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino, having found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property, the title to which was only entrusted to him by the complainant.

 

However, in this case, we deem it reasonable to affirm the sanction imposed by the IBP-CBD, i.e., Atty. Valerio was ordered suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, because, aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay her debts, she has also shown wanton disregard of the IBP's and Court Orders in the course of the proceedings.

 

WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XVIII-2008-647 dated December 11, 2008 of the IBP, which found respondent Atty. Laarni N. Valerio guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. She is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) years from the practice of law, effective upon the receipt of this Decision. She is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.

 

    Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to the personal record of Atty. Valerio as a member of the Bar; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

    

    This Decision shall be immediately executory.

 

    SO ORDERED.