QUIRINO TOMLIN II, Complainant, vs. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II, Respondent.

2006-02-23 | A.C. No. 6971

EN BANC
DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

On December 1, 2003, Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint[1] before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II for allegedly reneging on his
monetary obligations and for having issued bouncing checks; thereby violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility[2] and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22.[3]

Complainant averred that respondent borrowed from him P600,000.00 partially covered by seven
postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their respective due dates, the
checks were all dishonored by the drawee bank, to wit:

Check No. Due Date Amount Reason for Dishonor

MOB 1011326 May 16, 2001 P13,500.00 RTCOCI

MOB 1011311 June 11, 2001 P30,000.00 RTCOCI

MOB 1011328 June 17, 2001 P5,000.00 Account Closed

MOB 1011313 August 12, 2001 P50,000.00 Account Closed

MOB 1011329 August 16, 2001 P5,000.00 Account Closed

MOB 1011314 August 19, 2001 P50,000.00 Account Closed

MOB 1011330 September 18, 2001 P5,000.00 Account Closed

Complainant made several demands, the last being a formal letter[4] sent on September 25, 2002;[5]
however, respondent still failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. Consequently,
complainant instituted a case for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before
the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.[6] In addition, he filed the instant case for respondent's
disbarment.

On December 1, 2003, respondent was directed to file his answer but instead he filed several motions
for extension of time to file a responsive pleading[7] and a motion to dismiss complaint.[8]

Respondent alleged that the case should be dismissed outright for violation of the rule on non-forum
shopping. He argued that complainant did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for violations of
B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.[9]
Respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency of the criminal cases
is a form of harassment which should not be allowed.

| Page 1 of 6
On April 28, 2004, the Commission on Bar Discipline denied[10] the motion to dismiss for being a
prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 3 of its Rules of Procedure. Respondent's motion for
reconsideration[11] was likewise denied on June 16, 2004.[12]

Thereafter, respondent filed several motions for extension of time to file an answer.[13] His last motion
for extension was however denied for lack of merit. Consequently, the Commission on Bar Discipline
declared him in default.[14]

Respondent thereafter filed a manifestation with motion to terminate proceedings on the ground of
prescription[15] and omnibus motion to recall the default order.[16]

On January 3, 2005, the Commission on Bar Discipline required the parties to submit their respective
verified position papers after which the case shall be considered submitted for resolution.[17]

Only the complainant submitted his position paper.[18]

In the Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 2005, the Investigating Commissioner noted that
respondent failed to file an answer and/or position paper despite several requests for extension, in
disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it was observed that the pending criminal action against
respondent does not pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the issues in the present
administrative case. Hence, it was recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law
for one year.

On October 22, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of the Investigating
Commissioner, but modified the penalty of suspension from the practice of law from one year to two
years.

We agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP.

Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As 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. In so doing, the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] Lawyers
may be disciplined - whether in their professional or in their private capacity - for any conduct that is
wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.[20] Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his
profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment
because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the
continuance of such privilege.[21]

In the present case, respondent admitted his monetary obligations to the complainant but offered no
justifiable reason for his continued refusal to pay. Complainant made several demands, both verbal and
written, but respondent just ignored them and even made himself scarce. Although he acknowledged his
financial obligations to the complainant, respondent never offered nor made arrangements to pay his
debt. On the contrary, he refused to recognize any wrongdoing nor shown remorse for issuing worthless
checks, an act constituting gross misconduct.[22] Respondent must be reminded that it is his duty as a
lawyer to faithfully perform at all times his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. As
part of his duties, he must promptly pay his financial obligations.[23]

The contention that complainant violated the rule against forum shopping with the filing of this
administrative complaint is bereft of merit. There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse
opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another[24]
or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the
| Page 2 of 6
supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[25] Forum shopping applies
only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings.[26] Moreover, Criminal Case Nos.
6-367-03 to 6-373-03 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondent's act of making or drawing and
issuance of worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to discipline respondent as a
lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to
a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. The
burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative case, only
preponderance of evidence is required. Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial
question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.[27]

Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint
against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless from applying the
rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the
criminal case is pending final disposition when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly
disparate.[28]

Finally, we note that respondent failed to file his answer and verified position paper despite several
opportunities given him by the IBP, that is, from the time he received on December 20, 2003[29] the
Order[30] of the IBP requiring him to file an answer until March 31, 2005 when the Investigating
Commissioner submitted the Report and Recommendation. Instead, he filed several motions for
extension of time, motion to dismiss the complaint, motion for reconsideration, manifestation with motion
to terminate proceedings, and omnibus motion to recall the default order. Until the end, respondent
offered no plausible explanation for his failure to pay his debts. Instead, he kept on insisting, on plainly
unmeritorious grounds, the dismissal of the complaint. Verily, respondent's failure to comply with the
orders of the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.[31]
Respondent should be reminded that the IBP has disciplinary authority over him by virtue of his
membership therein.[32]

In view of the foregoing, we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years as
recommended by the IBP commensurate under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Salvador N. Moya II is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and violation of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two years,
effective immediately, with a warning that any further infraction by him shall be dealt with most severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to all courts as well as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
| Page 3 of 6
 REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice

CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Associate Justice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

Footnotes

[1] Rollo, pp. 12-17.

[2] Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes; and

Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

[3] Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (1979), Sec. 1.

[4] Rollo, p. 8.

[5] Id. at 9.
| Page 4 of 6
[6] Id. at 61-67.

[7] Id. at 26-29, 30-33, 34-38.

[8] Id. at 45-58.

[9] Criminal Case Nos. 6-367-03 to 6-373-03.

[10] Rollo, p. 110.

[11] Id. at 113-120.

[12] Id. at 123-124.

[13] Id. at 125-130, 135-137.

[14] Id. at 140-141.

[15] Id. at 142-146.

[16] Id. at 147-150.

[17] Id. at 152-153.

[18] Id. at 157-165.

[19] Lao v. Medel, 453 Phil. 115, 120 (2003).

[20] Garcia v. Bala, A.C. No. 5039, November 25, 2005.

[21] People v. Tuanda, A.C. No. 3360, January 30, 1990, 181 SCRA 692, 697.

[22] Lao v. Medel, supra at 121.

[23] Id. at 120.

[24] First Philippine International Bank v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 280, 305 (1996).

[25] Chemphil Export & Import Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 619, 655-656 (1995).

[26] Lucente v. Evangelista, Jr., 444 Phil. 721, 727 (2003).

[27] Po Cham v. Pizarro, A.C. No. 5499. August 16, 2005.

[28] In re Brillantes, Adm. Case No. 1245, March 2, 1977, 76 SCRA 1, 15.

[29] Rollo, p. 26.

[30] Id. at 25.

[31] Garcia v. Bala, supra note 20.

| Page 6 of 6