Attorney's Dishonored Checks and Evasion Lead to Two-Year Suspension

The Supreme Court has long held that lawyers must be paragons of honesty and integrity, not only in their professional dealings but in their private affairs as well. In a 2018 administrative case, the Court suspended a lawyer for two years after he issued dishonored checks and actively evaded arrest, demonstrating that a lawyer's financial misconduct and disregard for legal processes carry serious professional consequences.

The Case of Atty. Dennis L. Diño

Complainant Alfred Lehnert filed an administrative complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) seeking the permanent disbarment of Atty. Dennis L. Diño. The complaint alleged that Atty. Diño had committed two violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the law penalizing the issuance of worthless checks.

An Information was filed against Atty. Diño before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, and a warrant of arrest was issued. Law enforcement authorities from the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation made exhaustive efforts to serve the warrant, but they could not locate Atty. Diño at his known residential addresses in Bulacan, Quezon City, San Lazaro, and Sta. Cruz, nor at his office in Intramuros, Manila. Lehnert argued that Atty. Diño was hiding to evade arrest and prayed for his immediate disbarment.

Proceedings Before the IBP

The IBP's Commission on Bar Discipline scheduled a mandatory conference and directed both parties to submit their briefs. Atty. Diño, however, failed to appear and did not file any brief. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Diño guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

The Investigating Commissioner noted that while Atty. Diño had not yet been convicted of the criminal charge, his acts of evading arrest and refusing to participate in the administrative proceedings strongly suggested his probable guilt. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court sustained the IBP's findings and penalty. Citing the earlier case of Lao v. Medel (453 Phil. 115 [2003]), the Court emphasized that a lawyer's duty to promptly pay financial obligations is part of their broader duties to society, the bar, the courts, and their clients. A lawyer's conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Court reiterated that the issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct. It violates Canon 1 of the Code, which requires all members of the bar to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law. It likewise violates Rule 1.01, which forbids unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

The Court distinguished between penalties imposed in similar cases. A one-year suspension was imposed in Co v. Bernardino (349 Phil. 16 [1998]) for a cavalier attitude toward incurring debts. However, a heavier two-year suspension was warranted in Wong v. Moya (590 Phil. 279 [2008]), where the lawyer issued worthless checks and also disregarded IBP orders in administrative proceedings. Because Atty. Diño's conduct mirrored the more serious circumstances in Wong, the Court found the two-year suspension proper.

The Court also warned Atty. Diño that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. He was directed to serve his suspension immediately upon receipt of the Resolution and to formally manifest the start of his suspension to the Court within five days, furnishing copies to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he had entered his appearance.

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer's private misconduct, including financial irresponsibility, can result in disciplinary action. The duty of honesty extends beyond the courtroom to all aspects of a lawyer's life.
• Issuing checks that are subsequently dishonored is considered gross misconduct and a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, regardless of whether a criminal conviction has been obtained.
• Failure to participate in IBP administrative proceedings can be held against a lawyer and may aggravate the penalty imposed.
• Evading arrest and avoiding legal processes demonstrate a lack of respect for the law, which is fundamentally incompatible with the standards of the legal profession.
• Penalties for such misconduct range from suspension to disbarment, depending on the severity and circumstances of the case.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.