SC suspends lady lawyer due to issuance of bouncing checks
The issuance of bouncing checks by a lawyer is a ground for disciplinary action. It is an act of serious misconduct which can result to suspension even if the lawyer claims that when she issued the check she never intended for it to be deposited.
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has as yet been obtained against respondent Collado. We do not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal charges raised against her is essential, so far as either the administrative or civil service case or the disbarment charge against her is concerned. Since she had admitted issuing the checks when she did not have enough money in her bank account to cover the total amount thereof, it cannot be gainsaid that the acts with which she was charged would constitute a crime penalized by B.P. Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar.
Being a lawyer, [respondent] was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for. the law was penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws. (Enriquez v. De Vera; A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015)
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has as yet been obtained against respondent Collado. We do not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal charges raised against her is essential, so far as either the administrative or civil service case or the disbarment charge against her is concerned. Since she had admitted issuing the checks when she did not have enough money in her bank account to cover the total amount thereof, it cannot be gainsaid that the acts with which she was charged would constitute a crime penalized by B.P. Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar.
Being a lawyer, [respondent] was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for. the law was penal in character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws. (Enriquez v. De Vera; A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015)
