Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOCORRO T. CO v. ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 6972 2008-10-17	JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We come now to the penalty imposable in this case. In Co v. Bernardino[26] and Lao v. Medel[27] 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.
	AC. No. 7494 2008-06-27	WILSON CHAM v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor -- or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court.[16]
	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
In Co v. Bernardino[21] and Lao v. Medel,[22] we held that for issuing worthless checks, a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year's suspension from the practice of law, or a suspension of six months upon partial payment of the obligation.[23]
	AC. No. 5454 2004-11-23	CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While the case of Nuñez v. Ricafort[37] holds some similarity to the present case, it is material to note that this is the first time that a complaint of this nature has been filed against the respondent. Likewise, unlike the Nuñez case, the criminal cases filed by the complainant have not been finally disposed of, hence, no conviction against respondent was ever obtained. On all fours to this case is the case of Lao v. Medel.[38] Respondent Atty. Robert W. Medel, who issued four checks which were subsequently dishonored totaling twenty-two thousand pesos (P22,000) in payment of his outstanding obligation, was ordered suspended for one year by this Court in line with the cases of Co. v. Bernardino,[39] Ducat, Jr. v. Villalon, Jr.,[40] and Saburnido v. Madroño.[41]
	AC. No. 4585 2004-11-12	MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers. And while "the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity, where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney."[30]
	AC. No. 6408 2004-08-31	ISIDRA BARRIENTOS v. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Mere issuance of worthless checks by a lawyer, regardless of whether or not the same were issued in his professional capacity to a client, calls for appropriate disciplinary measures. As we explained in Co vs. Bernardino:[25]
	AC. No. 4762 2004-06-28	LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO v. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO PUNO, J.
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. Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who issued worthless checks - Lao v. Medel,[25] Co v. Bernardino,[26] and Ducat v. Villalon, Jr.,[27] - we find respondent's reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.