TL;DR

The Supreme Court suspended Atty. Orlando S. Paulma from the practice of law for two years due to his conviction for violating Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), the law penalizing the issuance of bouncing checks. This case underscores that lawyers, as guardians of the law, must adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct both professionally and personally. Issuing a worthless check, a crime involving moral turpitude, demonstrates a lack of honesty and good moral character, making an attorney unfit to practice law and eroding public trust in the legal profession. This ruling serves as a reminder that lawyers are held to a higher standard of accountability and that actions outside the courtroom can have serious professional repercussions.

When a Lawyer’s Check Bounces: Moral Turpitude and Professional Discipline

This administrative case against Atty. Orlando S. Paulma arose from a complaint filed by Alex Nulada, triggered by a dishonored check issued by Atty. Paulma as payment for a debt. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Paulma’s conviction for violation of BP 22, the law against issuing bad checks, constituted a crime involving moral turpitude warranting disciplinary action. The facts reveal that Atty. Paulma issued a check for P650,000.00 to Mr. Nulada, which subsequently bounced due to insufficient funds. Despite notice and demands, Atty. Paulma failed to make good on the check, leading to a criminal case and his eventual conviction by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). This conviction became final, paving the way for this administrative complaint seeking Atty. Paulma’s disbarment or suspension.

The legal framework for this case rests on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which outlines grounds for disbarment or suspension, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) further mandate lawyers to uphold the law and avoid unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reiterated that the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions, requiring lawyers to be paragons of integrity both in their professional and private lives. The issuance of a worthless check, as highlighted in Enriquez v. De Vera, is not merely a private matter but a transgression with public implications.

Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for 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…

The Court emphasized that BP 22 was enacted to protect the banking system and public confidence in checks as a medium of exchange. Issuing a bad check, therefore, undermines public order and is considered a public nuisance. For a lawyer, such an act is particularly egregious as it violates the lawyer’s oath to uphold the law and demonstrates a lack of the honesty and moral character expected of members of the bar. Atty. Paulma’s defense, claiming he issued the check to accommodate a friend and informed Mr. Nulada of insufficient funds, was deemed insufficient to excuse his conduct. The Court underscored that the final conviction for violation of BP 22 conclusively established the crime involving moral turpitude.

In determining the appropriate penalty, the Supreme Court referenced previous cases involving similar violations. Cases like Heenan v. Espejo, A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio, Dizon v. De Taza, and Wong v. Moya II, all resulted in two-year suspensions for lawyers who issued dishonored checks. These precedents demonstrate a consistent pattern of disciplinary action for such misconduct. The Court adopted the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which, after investigation, recommended a two-year suspension, modifying the initial recommendation of six months. The Supreme Court concurred that a two-year suspension was a fitting penalty, effectively balancing the need to discipline erring lawyers and maintain public trust in the legal profession.

The ruling in Nulada v. Paulma serves as a stark reminder to all lawyers that their conduct, both within and outside their legal practice, is subject to scrutiny. Membership in the bar is not merely a profession but a privilege demanding unwavering adherence to ethical standards and the law. Any deviation, especially involving dishonesty or acts considered morally reprehensible, can lead to serious disciplinary consequences, including suspension or disbarment. This case reinforces the principle that lawyers are expected to be exemplars of integrity and that their actions reflect not only on themselves but on the entire legal profession.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nulada v. Paulma, G.R. No. 8172, April 12, 2016