EN BANC
[ A.C. No. 10179 (Formerly CBD 11-2985), March 04, 2014 ]
BENJAMIN Q. ONG, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS, RESPONDENT.
Facts:
In January 2008, complainant Benjamin Ong was introduced to respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos by Sheriff Fernando Mercado of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. After several calls and personal interactions between them, Ong and Atty. Delos Santos became friends.
In time, according to Ong, Atty. Delos Santos asked him to encash his postdated check inasmuch as he was in dire need of cash. To reassure Ong that the check would be funded upon maturity, Atty. Delos Santos bragged about his lucrative practice and his good paying clients. Convinced of Atty. Delos Santos’ financial stability, Ong handed to Atty. Delos Santos on January 29, 2008 the amount of P100,000.00 in exchange for the latter’s Metrobank Check No. 0110268 postdated February 29, 2008.
However, the check was dishonored upon presentment for the reason that the account was closed. Ong relayed the matter of the dishonor to Atty. Delos Santos, and demanded immediate payment, but the latter just ignored him. When efforts to collect remained futile, Ong brought a criminal complaint for estafa and for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Atty. Delos Santos. Ong also brought this disbarment complaint against Atty. Delos Santos in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which docketed the complaint as CBD Case No. 11-2985.
Issue:
By issuing the worthless check, did Atty. Delos Santos violate Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Ruling:
Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar. The Court unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent, honorable, and reliable individual in whom the public may repose confidence. Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, 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.
lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
That his act involved a private dealing with Ong did not matter. His being a lawyer invested him – whether he was acting as such or in a non-professional capacity – with the obligation to exhibit good faith, fairness and candor in his relationship with others. There is no question that a lawyer could be disciplined not only for a malpractice in his profession, but also for any misconduct committed outside of his professional capacity. His being a lawyer demanded that he conduct himself as a person of the highest moral and professional integrity and probity in his dealings with others.
Comments
Post a Comment