Lawyer Suspended for Issuing Bouncing Check to Settle Client's Case

The Supreme Court has long held that lawyers must maintain the highest standards of integrity, both in their professional and personal dealings. When a lawyer uses her position to deceive another party—even in the course of settling a client's case—the consequences can be severe. In Grande v. De Silva (A.C. No. 4838, July 29, 2003), the Court suspended a lawyer for two years for issuing a check drawn against a closed account, ruling that such conduct constituted deceit, gross misconduct, and a violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in criminal cases for Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings, respondent Atty. Evangeline De Silva, who represented the accused, offered complainant a personal check worth P144,768.00 as settlement of the civil aspect of the case.

Complainant initially refused the check, but the lawyer assured him it would be honored upon presentment. She even stated that, as a lawyer, she would never issue a check without sufficient funds. Relying on this assurance, complainant accepted the check and desisted from participating in the criminal case, which led to its dismissal and the release of the accused.

When complainant deposited the check, it was returned unpaid. The reason: "Account Closed." Despite a formal demand letter, the lawyer ignored the demand. Complainant then filed both criminal and administrative complaints against her.

The Issue

The central question was whether a lawyer who issues a bouncing check under these circumstances should be held administratively liable for deceit and violation of the Lawyer's Oath.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the complainant, adopting the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) that the lawyer be suspended from the practice of law for two years.

The Court found that the lawyer deliberately deceived the complainant by inducing him to accept her check with the assurance that it would be funded, when in fact she had drawn it against a closed account. This act amounted to deceit and constituted a clear violation of her oath as a lawyer.

The Court cited Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or any violation of the oath taken before admission to practice.

Why the Lawyer's Conduct Was Unacceptable

The Court emphasized that the legal profession demands good moral character not only as a condition for entering the practice of law but as a continuing requirement throughout a lawyer's career. A lawyer who commits gross misconduct that puts her moral character in serious doubt may be deemed unfit to continue practicing.

The Court also noted that the lawyer's deliberate refusal to accept court notices—returned unserved with notations like "Moved" and "Refused"—showed a willful disregard for authority. This defiance of lawful orders was described as contumacious conduct that stained the nobility of the legal profession.

Citing Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court reminded that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for legal processes. A lawyer who disdains to follow even simple directives cannot be trusted to serve justice.

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer's personal dealings reflect on the profession. Issuing a bouncing check—even outside the strict performance of legal duties—can result in administrative sanctions.
• Deceit in any form is grounds for discipline. Inducing someone to accept a check with false assurances of funding is a clear violation of the Lawyer's Oath.
• Ignoring court directives worsens the case. Refusing to receive notices or comply with orders demonstrates contempt for legal processes and may justify harsher penalties.
• Settlement arrangements must be made in good faith. Lawyers who negotiate settlements on behalf of clients must ensure that any undertaking, including personal checks, is backed by sufficient funds.
• The penalty can be severe. A two-year suspension effectively bars a lawyer from practicing law, a significant consequence for what some might view as a private financial matter.

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