SC punishes lawyer for NOT paying debts

THIRD DIVISION [ A.C. No. 9950, February 10, 2014 ] THE FLIGHT SHOP, INC. VS. ATTY. FERNANDO T. BARICAN.

Before us is a complaint[1] for disbarment against respondent Atty. Fernando T. Barican. This stemmed from Atty. Barican's refusal to pay for the two airline tickets to the United States which he purchased from complainant travel agency.

The facts are as follows.

On June 13, 2008, Flight Shop, Inc., a travel agency represented by its Vice President for Operations, Mr. Guy John Leo B. Cruz, filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Barican before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The complaint alleged that on January 7, 2008, Atty. Barican went to the travel agency representing himself as a lawyer and reminding everyone that he used to be a cabinet member of the Estrada administration.[2]

Atty. Barican requested booking for two round trip airline tickets to the United States on behalf of Mr. David Ventura and Mrs. Trinidad Ventura. The tickets cost P279,706.92.[3]

When Atty. Barican was presented with the receipt and voucher, he belatedly told Mr. Cruz that he had no cash on hand. Atty. Barican instead issued a check dated that day.[4] Although Atty. Barican was not a regular client entitled to this accommodation, Mr. Cruz thought that Atty. Barican, being a lawyer, could be trusted.[5]

When Atty. Barican was handed the tickets and voucher, he grabbed the check and changed the date from January 7, 2008 to January 21, 2008.[6] Mr. Cruz was shocked and asked Atty. Barican for an explanation, but he just "reminded everyone of who he was and how he had money."[7]

On January 21, 2008, Atty. Barican said he would pay by January 28, 2008 but still did not pay on that date.[8] He promised every week that he would settle his obligation and even threatened that he would never pay if the check was deposited.[9] The check was nevertheless deposited and, as it turned out, Atty. Barican's account was already closed.[10]When Atty. Barican was asked for the overdue payment, he cursed everyone and claimed he would "slap the [c]omplainant with the money for payment."[11] He even told the employees that the travel agency would fold up soon so they should transfer to the competitor.[12] Ms. Jo-Ann Lauzon, complainant travel agency's supervisor, and Ms. Rossana Deato, complainant travel agency's cashier, executed affidavits to support the complaint.

In his answer, Atty. Barican denied going to complainant travel agency representing himself as a lawyer. He also denied reminding anyone of his former position in government.[13]

Atty. Barican alleged that a former associate promised to pay him back money she owed him. However, this associate requested his help in getting airline tickets to the United States where she would collect the money to pay Atty. Barican.[14]

He called Ms. Lauzon during the first week of January 2008. He knew her as he had purchased airline tickets from her before.[15] At Ms. Lauzon's suggestion, Atty. Barican went to the travel agency and spoke with Ms. Lauzon and Mr. Cruz, Vice President for Operations.[16]

Atty. Barican alleged that he was granted an accommodation to obtain on credit the two airline tickets in the names of his former associate and her husband.[17] Mr. Cruz asked him to issue a post-dated check to secure the credit. Atty. Barican mentioned that he had some checks, but these were under a closed bank account.[18] However, Mr. Cruz insisted that Atty. Barican give a check to obtain the airline tickets on credit.[19] Thus, he gave a check dated January 7, 2008. Mr. Cruz returned this and told Atty. Barican to correct it by changing the date to January 28, 2008, to which Atty. Barican agreed.[20]

Atty. Barican added that his associate used the airline tickets but was unable to collect money during the associate's stay in the United States. As a result, he was unable to pay complainant travel agency for the tickets.[21] However, he has "kept in touch with Mr. Cruz and Ms. Lauron x x x to try to make arrangements for payment."[22]

The Investigating Commissioner[23] of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that Atty. Barican violated Rules 1.01,[24] 1.02,[25] and 7.03[26] of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended that Atty. Barican be suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.[27]

The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in its Resolution No. XX-2012-624 dated December 29, 2012, resolved as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A ", and finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and considering Respondent's violation of Rule 1.01, Rule 1.02 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty. Fernando T. Barican is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year and Ordered to Return to Complainant the amount of Two Hundred Seventy Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Six (P279,706.92) Pesos and Ninety Two Centavos with legal interest within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice.[28]
No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by either parties.[29] In any case, this court has the authority to discipline members of the bar.[30]

The issue before us is whether the acts of Atty. Barican amount to a violation of Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The legal profession is reserved only for those of good moral character.[31] Members of the bar have taken their oath to conduct themselves "according to the best of [their] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [their] clients."[32] In fact, lawyers are expected to conduct themselves beyond reproach and above suspicion even in their personal dealings with the public at large.[33]

Lawyers must, at all times, conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the trust and confidence reposed upon them by clients and non-clients alike. This is clear from the following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

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.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines found that complainant travel agency has sufficiently proven its case against Atty. Barican with the following documents: [34]
-
Request for ticket issuance/hotel voucher/billing in the name of Atty. Barican dated January 7, 2008[35]
-
Provisional Receipt No. 706 in the name of Atty. Barican dated January 7, 2008[36]
-
Delivery Receipt No. 16421 dated January 7, 2008 in the name of Atty. Barican[37]
-
Chinabank Check No. MKT C 4090234 dated January 7, 2008 later altered to January 21, 2008 in the amount of P279J06.92 in the name of complainant travel agency and with Atty. Barican as the drawer[38]
-
The notation, Account Closed[39]
-
The affidavit executed by Ms. Jo-Ann Lauzon, complainant travel Agency’s supervisor[40]
-
The affidavit executed by Ms. Rossana Deato, complainant travel agency's cashier[41]
-
The affidavit executed by Mr. Guy John Leo B. Cruz, complainant travel agency's Vice President for Operations[42]
-
The admission by Atty. Barican in paragraph 8 of his answer stating that the check was from a closed account[43]
In several cases, we have disciplined lawyers for their dishonesty and immoral conduct in refusing to pay their just debts.

In Constantino v. Saludares,[44] respondent unjustifiably refused to pay his f P,000.00 loan to complainant's son and gave paltry excuses for his non-payment. He was suspended for three (3) months from the practice of law. [45]

In Dr. Sanchez v. Atty. Somoso,[46] respondent paid his hospital bill totalling P44,347.00 with personal checks that were dishonored when deposited. This court found Atty. Somoso guilty of misconduct in writing off a check from an account he knew to be closed and refusing to settle his bill despite demand. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months.[47]

In Vda. de Espino v. Atty. Presquito,[48] complainant sold respondent a piece of land for which respondent issued eight (8) post-dated checks totalling P736,060.00 as payment. All eight checks were dishonored, and respondent refused to pay the amount despite demand. Complainant surmised it was because of respondent's reliance on the influence of his father-in-law who was a former Executive Judge in Cagayan de Oro Regional Trial Court and of his uncle who was also a judge.[49] Complainant's widow continued trying to collect from respondent but to no avail. This court found the recommended penalty of six (6) months suspension too light and increased this to one (1) year suspension.[50]

In Tomlin II v. Moya II,[51] complainant alleged that Atty. Moya borrowed money from him which was partially covered by seven (7) post-dated checks totalling P158,500.00. These checks were all dishonored when complainant tried to encash them, and Atty. Moya refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. This court suspended him from the practice of law for two (2) years.[52]

Thus, this court accepts and adopts the findings of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and its recommendation for Atty. Barican's suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

We find that Atty. Barican's issuance of checks drawn from an account he knew to be closed[53] and his unjustified refusal to pay for their value warrant such suspension.

However, the Board resolved that Atty. Barican should also be ordered to pay complainant travel agency the amount of P279,706.92 with legal interest within 30 days from receipt of notice.

In Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar,[54] this court discussed how "[disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the court into the conduct of one of its officers."[55] In Ronquillo, we did not rule on the issue of the amount to be returned to complainant. Instead, we emphasized that "the only question for determination in these [disciplinary] proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar."[56]

In fact, this relief was not even prayed for in the complaint.[57] Thus, we cannot adopt the Board's resolution ordering Atty. Barican to pay complainant travel agency the amount of P279,706.92 with legal interest. This is a relief that can be prayed for in a civil action. It is not a matter that may be resolved in a disciplinary proceeding.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Fernando T. Barican is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective immediately. Let copies of this resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, pp. 2-5.[2] Id. at 2.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 3.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id. at 4.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 20.

[14] Id. at 22.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 23.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Id. at 24.

[22] Id.

[23] The report was penned by Commissioner Atty. Salvador B. Hababag.

[24] CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 -A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

[25] CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 1, Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

[26] CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 7, 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.

[27] Rollo, p. 52.

[28] Id. at 45.

[29] Per Office of the Bar Confidant, no motion for reconsideration/petition for review was filed by either of the parties as of June 26, 2013.

[30] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, sec. 27.

Sec. 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, or for a willful 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.
[31] Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar, 524 Phil. 311, 317 (2006) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

[32] Attorney's Oath.

[33] Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar, 524 Phil. 311, 317 (2006) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

[34] Rollo, p. 51.

[35] Id. at 8.

[36] Id. at 9.

[37] Id. at 10.

[38] Id. at 11.

[39] Id. at 32.

[40] Id. at 13-15.

[41] Id. at 16.

[42] Id. at 2-5.

[43] Id. at 22.

[44] Constantino v. Atty. Saludares, A.C. No. 2029, December 7, 1993, 228 SCRA 233 [Per J. Bidin, Third Division].

[45] Id. at 238.

[46] Dr. Sanchez v. Atty. Somoso, 459 Phil. 209 (2003) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].

[47] Id. at 213.

[48] Vda. de Espino v. Atty. Presquito, 416 Phil. 714 (2004) [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

[49] Id. at 717.

[50] Id. at 725.

[51] Tomlin II v. Moya II, 518 Phil. 325 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].

[52] Id. at 332-333.

[53] Rollo, p. 22.

[54] Ronquillo v. Atty. Cezar, 524 Phil. 311 (2006) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

[55] Id. at 318.

[56] Id.

[57] Rollo, p. 5.