A.C. No. 3360 - JANUARY 1990 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 3360January 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Fe T. Tuanda A.M. No. P-87-119January 30, 1990Thelma A. Ponferrada vs. Edna Relator G.R. No. 86383January 30, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo R. Rosell G.R. No. 85934January 30, 1990Ssk Parts Corporation vs. Teodorico Camas G.R. No. 83341January 30, 1990Arnel P. Misolas vs. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga G.R. No. 85266January 30, 1990Philippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 80508January 30, 1990Eddie Guazon vs. Renato De Villa G.R. No. 78555January 30, 1990Romulo S. Bulaong vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76902January 30, 1990Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 66386January 30, 1990Guillermo Bañaga vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems G.R. No. 62370January 30, 1990Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Rosalio A. De Leon G.R. No. 49188January 30, 1990Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 46345January 30, 1990Restituto Ceniza vs. the Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 43356January 30, 1990Thelma Fernan vs. the Court of Appeals G.R. No. 33777January 30, 1990Pacific Products, Inc. vs. Vicente S. Ong G.R. No. 88421January 30, 1990Ayala Corporation vs. Job B. Madayag G.R. No. 90878January 29, 1990Pablito V. Sanidad vs. the Commission on Elections G.R. No. 85281January 29, 1990Spouses Carlos Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 82028January 29, 1990Filomeno N. Lantion, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 81066January 29, 1990Sixto Provido vs. Chief, Philippines Constabulary G.R. No. 79956January 29, 1990Cordillera Broad Coalition vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. 77429January 29, 1990Lauro Santos vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 77088January 29, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Yagong G.R. No. 69018January 29, 1990Ernesto S. Dizon, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 67301January 29, 1990Manuel V. Bala vs. the Hon. Judge Antonio M. Martinez G.R. No. 50464January 29, 1990Sunbeam Convenience Foods Inc., vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 38387January 29, 1990Hilda Walstrom vs. Fernando Mapa, Jr. G.R. No. 34019January 29, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Lingatong G.R. No. 52491January 29, 1990Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78325January 25, 1990Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 42514January 25, 1990Rodolfo P. Gonzalez vs. Regina Ordonez-Benitez G.R. No. 77854January 24, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Romeo P. Bacani G.R. No. 87449January 23, 1990South Motorists Enterprises vs. Roque Tosoc G.R. No. 86301January 23, 1990Julian Sy vs. Jaime D. Discaya G.R. Nos. 86100-03January 23, 1990Metropolitan Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 75304January 23, 1990Bienvenida Pangilinan vs. Fidel Ramos G.R. No. 44617January 23, 1990Cecilio Ortega, et al. vs. Dominador Agripa Tan, et al. G.R. No. 85251January 22, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Felicisimo Arengo G.R. Nos. 84843-44January 22, 1990Nurhussein A. Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 82146January 22, 1990Eulogio Occena vs. Pedro M. Icamina G.R. No. 80102January 22, 1990The People of the Philippines vs. Jovencio P. Lucas G.R. No. 78265January 22, 1990Spouses Estanislao vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 78212January 22, 1990T.H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. et. al. vs. Franklin Drilon G.R. No. 77853January 22, 1990Marina Port Services, Inc. vs. Cresencio R. Iniego G.R. No. 76788January 22, 1990Juanita Salas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76422January 22, 1990United Housing Corporation vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit G.R. Nos. 74062-63January 22, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Joel Tripoli G.R. Nos. 72654-61January 22, 1990Alipio R. Ruga, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 72138January 22, 1990Sps. Felicidad M. Alvendia, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68935January 22, 1990Jose Peneyra vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. 68520January 22, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio S. Pasco, et al. G.R. No. 62805January 22, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Jaime A. Buenaflor G.R. No. 54908January 22, 1990Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mitsubishi Metal Corporation, et al. G.R. No. 47663January 22, 1990Belstar Transportation, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation, et al. G.R. No. 46238January 22, 1990Laureana Tambot, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 43830January 22, 1990Lily San Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 42735January 22, 1990Ramon L. Abad vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 43495-99January 20, 1990Tropical Hut Employees' Union-Cgw, et al. vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 41835January 19, 1990Prudential Bank vs. Filomeno Gapultos G.R. No. 57455January 18, 1990Evelyn De Luna, et al. vs. Sofronio F. Abrigo G.R. No. 44414January 18, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Talla G.R. No. 88864January 17, 1990Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 85915January 17, 1990Triumph International, et al. vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja G.R. Nos. 79436-50January 17, 1990Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation vs. Sec. of Labor G.R. No. 75979January 17, 1990Raymundo Marabeles vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 75663January 17, 1990Antonio G. Ambrosio vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. Nos. 74938-39January 17, 1990Angelina J. Malabanan vs. Gaw Ching G.R. No. 52728January 17, 1990Avelino C. Agulto vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 30670January 17, 1990Pastor Tanchoco vs. Florendo P. Aquino G.R. No. 83982January 12, 1990Jesus C. Jakihaca vs. Sps. Lilia Aquino G.R. No. 76752January 12, 1990St. Mary's College (Tagum, Davao) vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 75679January 12, 1990Rosauro C. Cruz vs. Augusto E. Villarin G.R. No. 59284January 12, 1990Juanito Cardoza vs. Pablo S. Singson G.R. No. 45355January 12, 1990Province of Misamis Oriental vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. A.M. No. RTJ-87-104January 11, 1990Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Jose M. Estacion Jr. G.R. No. 85332January 11, 1990Bienvenido Paz vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 76238January 11, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin T. Noguerras G.R. No. 59731January 11, 1990Alfredo Ching vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 59568-76January 11, 1990Peter Nierras vs. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Fe T. TuandaThelma A. Ponferrada vs. Edna RelatorPeople of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo R. RosellSsk Parts Corporation vs. Teodorico CamasArnel P. Misolas vs. Hon. Benjamin V. PangaPhilippine Veterans Investment Development Corporation, Petitioner, vs. Court of AppealsEddie Guazon vs. Renato De VillaRomulo S. Bulaong vs. the Honorable Court of AppealsLand Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of AppealsGuillermo Bañaga vs. Commission on the Settlement of Land ProblemsPhilippine National Bank vs. Hon. Rosalio A. De LeonPhilippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsRestituto Ceniza vs. the Hon. Court of AppealsThelma Fernan vs. the Court of AppealsPacific Products, Inc. vs. Vicente S. OngAyala Corporation vs. Job B. MadayagPablito V. Sanidad vs. the Commission on ElectionsSpouses Carlos Valenzuela vs. Court of AppealsFilomeno N. Lantion, et al. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSixto Provido vs. Chief, Philippines ConstabularyCordillera Broad Coalition vs. Commission on AuditLauro Santos vs. People of the PhilippinesPeople of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio YagongErnesto S. Dizon, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionManuel V. Bala vs. the Hon. Judge Antonio M. MartinezSunbeam Convenience Foods Inc., vs. Court of AppealsHilda Walstrom vs. Fernando Mapa, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo LingatongDirector of Lands vs. Court of AppealsDel Monte Corporation vs. Court of AppealsRodolfo P. Gonzalez vs. Regina Ordonez-BenitezPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo P. BacaniSouth Motorists Enterprises vs. Roque TosocJulian Sy vs. Jaime D. DiscayaMetropolitan Bank vs. Court of AppealsBienvenida Pangilinan vs. Fidel RamosCecilio Ortega, et al. vs. Dominador Agripa Tan, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Felicisimo ArengoNurhussein A. Ututalum vs. Commission on ElectionsEulogio Occena vs. Pedro M. IcaminaThe People of the Philippines vs. Jovencio P. LucasSpouses Estanislao vs. Court of AppealsT.H. Valderama & Sons, Inc. et. al. vs. Franklin DrilonMarina Port Services, Inc. vs. Cresencio R. IniegoJuanita Salas vs. Court of AppealsUnited Housing Corporation vs. Abelardo M. DayritPeople of the Philippines vs. Joel TripoliAlipio R. Ruga, et al. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionSps. Felicidad M. Alvendia, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtJose Peneyra vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtPeople of the Philippines vs. Virgilio S. Pasco, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Jaime A. BuenaflorCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Mitsubishi Metal Corporation, et al.Belstar Transportation, Inc. vs. Board of Transportation, et al.Laureana Tambot, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Lily San Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ramon L. Abad vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Tropical Hut Employees' Union-Cgw, et al. vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., et al.Prudential Bank vs. Filomeno GapultosEvelyn De Luna, et al. vs. Sofronio F. AbrigoPeople of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo TallaPacific Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionTriumph International, et al. vs. Pura Ferrer-CallejaEastern Assurance & Surety Corporation vs. Sec. of LaborRaymundo Marabeles vs. Court of AppealsAntonio G. Ambrosio vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAngelina J. Malabanan vs. Gaw ChingAvelino C. Agulto vs. Court of AppealsPastor Tanchoco vs. Florendo P. AquinoJesus C. Jakihaca vs. Sps. Lilia AquinoSt. Mary's College (Tagum, Davao) vs. National Labor Relations CommissionRosauro C. Cruz vs. Augusto E. VillarinJuanito Cardoza vs. Pablo S. SingsonProvince of Misamis Oriental vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc.Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Jose M. Estacion Jr.Bienvenido Paz vs. Court of AppealsPeople of the Philippines vs. Benjamin T. NoguerrasAlfredo Ching vs. Court of AppealsPeter Nierras vs. Auxencio C. DacuycuyThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 3360 January 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,complainant
vs.
ATTY. FE T. TUANDA,respondent.
PER CURIAM:
In a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension dated 12 July 1989, 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 dated 17 October 1988 in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 05093.
On 17 December 1983, respondent received from one Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry, with a total stated value of P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis, with the condition that the respondent would turn over the sales proceeds and return the unsold items to Ms. Marquez on or before 14 February 1984. Sometime in February 1984, respondent, instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry which then amounted to approximately P26,250.00, issued three checks: (a) a check dated 16 February 1984 for the amount of P5,400.00; (b) a check dated 23 February 1984 also for the amount of P5,400.00; and (c) a check dated 25 February 1984 for the amount of P15,450.00. Upon presentment for payment within ninety (90) days after their issuance, all three (3) checks were dishonored by the drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor, respondent made no arrangements with the bank concerning the honoring of checks which had bounced and made no effort to settle her obligations to Ms. Marquez.
Consequently, four (4) informations were filed against respondent with the Regional Trial Court of Manila: (a) one for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 85-38358; and (b) three (3) for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, docketed respectively as Criminal Cases Nos. 85-38359, 85-38360 and 85-38361. In due time, after trial, the trial court rendered a decision dated 25 August 1987 which:
(a) acquitted respondent of the charge of estafa; and
(b) convicted respondent of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in all three (3) cases, and sentenced respondent to pay a fine of P6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P5,400.00 in Criminal Case No. 8538359;
to pay a fine of P 6,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P5,400.00, in Criminal Case No. 85-38360; and
to pay a fine of P16,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to indemnify the complainant in the amount of P15,450.00, in Criminal Case No. 85-38361, and to pay the costs in all three (3) cases.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR No. 05093 affirmedin totothe decision of the trial court but, in addition, suspended respondent Tuanda from the practice of law. The pertinent portion of the decision read as follows:
For reasons above stated and finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED subject to this modification.
It appearing from the records that the accused Fe Tuanda is a member of the Bar, and the offense for (sic) which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude, she is hereby ordered suspended from the practice of law and shall not practice her profession until further action from the Supreme Court, in accordance with Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. A copy of this decision must be forwarded to the Supreme Court as required by Section 29 of the same Rule.
SO ORDERED.1
On 16 December 1988, respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated 9 January 1989, noted respondent's Notice of Appeal and advised her "to address her Notice of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the proper forum." On 1 February 1989, respondent filed with this Court a Notice of Appeal.
In a Resolution dated 31 May 1989, the Supreme Court noted without action respondent's Notice of Appeal and declared that the Court of Appeals' decision of 17 October 1988 had become final and executory upon expiration of the period for filing a petition for review oncertiorarion 16 December 1988. In that Resolution, the Court found that respondent had lost her right to appeal bycertiorariwhen she posted with this Court a Notice of Appeal instead of filing a petition for review oncertiorariunder Section 1, Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court within the reglementary period.
In the instant Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, respondent states:
that suspension from the practice of law is indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty aggravating the lower court's penalty of fine considering that accused-appellant's action on the case during the trial on the merits at the lower court has always been motivated purely by sincere belief that she is innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee.
We read the above statement as a claim by the respondent that, she had not violated her oath as a member of the Philippine Bar upon the ground that when she issued the checks which bounced, she did not intend to cause damage to complainant Ms. Marquez.
The Court affirms the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals upon respondent Tuanda.ℒαwρhi৷The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that "the offense [of] which she is found guilty involved moral turpitude." We should add that violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public order. InLozano v. Martinez,2the Court explained the nature of the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in the following terms:
x x x x x x x x x
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. . . .The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is prescribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order.
x x x x x x x x x
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.3(Italics supplied)
Respondent was thus correctly suspended from the practice of law because she had been convicted of crimes involving 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. (Italics supplied)
We should add that 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." Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. InMelendrez v. Decena,4this Court stressed that:
the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a person of good moral character.1âwphi1This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.5
ACCORDINGLY,the Court Resolved toDENYthe Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law until further orders from this Court. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the Bar Confidant and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and spread on the record of respondent.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr., Medialdea and Regalado, JJ.,in the result.
Footnotes
1Court of Appeals' Decision, p. 7; Rollo p. 14; italics supplied.
2146 SCRA 323 (1986).
3146 SCRA at 338 and 340.
4Administrative Case No. 2104, promulgated 24 August 1989.
5Id.,slip op., p. 16; italics supplied.