Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 771 views

    Espino Vs Presquito, A.C No. 4762 (Legal Ethics)

    Uploaded by

    Marlouis U. Planas
    Respondent, a lawyer, issued 8 post-dated checks totaling P736,060 to complainant's late husband in payment for a piece of land, but all the checks were dishonored. Despite repeated demands for payment from the complainant and her late husband, respondent refused to pay. The IBP investigation found respondent failed to act with candor and fairness and recommended a 6-month suspension. The Supreme Court ruled respondent's refusal to pay the dishonored checks and indifference to demands for payment violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering respondent's dilatory tactics and issuance of worthless checks, the Court suspended respondent from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Espino Vs Presquito, A.C No. 4762 (Legal Ethics)

    Uploaded by

    Marlouis U. Planas
    771 views3 pages
    Respondent, a lawyer, issued 8 post-dated checks totaling P736,060 to complainant's late husband in payment for a piece of land, but all the checks were dishonored. Despite repeated demands for payment from the complainant and her late husband, respondent refused to pay. The IBP investigation found respondent failed to act with candor and fairness and recommended a 6-month suspension. The Supreme Court ruled respondent's refusal to pay the dishonored checks and indifference to demands for payment violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering respondent's dilatory tactics and issuance of worthless checks, the Court suspended respondent from practice for 1 year.

    Original Description:

    Violation of Canon 16.04

    Original Title

    Espino vs Presquito, A.C No. 4762 [Legal Ethics]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent, a lawyer, issued 8 post-dated checks totaling P736,060 to complainant's late husband in payment for a piece of land, but all the checks were dishonored. Despite repeated demands for payment from the complainant and her late husband, respondent refused to pay. The IBP investigation found respondent failed to act with candor and fairness and recommended a 6-month suspension. The Supreme Court ruled respondent's refusal to pay the dishonored checks and indifference to demands for payment violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering respondent's dilatory tactics and issuance of worthless checks, the Court suspended respondent from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    771 views3 pages

    Espino Vs Presquito, A.C No. 4762 (Legal Ethics)

    Uploaded by

    Marlouis U. Planas
    Respondent, a lawyer, issued 8 post-dated checks totaling P736,060 to complainant's late husband in payment for a piece of land, but all the checks were dishonored. Despite repeated demands for payment from the complainant and her late husband, respondent refused to pay. The IBP investigation found respondent failed to act with candor and fairness and recommended a 6-month suspension. The Supreme Court ruled respondent's refusal to pay the dishonored checks and indifference to demands for payment violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Considering respondent's dilatory tactics and issuance of worthless checks, the Court suspended respondent from practice for 1 year.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    SECOND DIVISION
    A.M. No. AC 4762
    June 28, 2004
    LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant,
    vs.
    ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQUITO, respondent.
    RESOLUTION
    PUNO, J.:
    Statement of the Case:
    On June 9, 1997, Linda Vda. de Espino wrote a letter-complaint 1 with the then
    Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, charging respondent Atty. Pepito C. Presquito,
    a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Misamis Oriental Chapter,
    for "having employed fraud, trickery and dishonest means in refusing to honor and
    pay [her] late husband Virgilio Espino, when he was still alive, the sum
    of P763,060.00." According to complainant, respondents unlawful refusal and
    dilatory tactics partly triggered the death of her husband, who died "disillusioned
    and embittered."2 The letter-complaint and affidavit also alleged that
    notwithstanding the numerous oral demands by Mr. Espino and complainant (after
    the death of Mr. Espino), respondent still refused to pay the amount represented by
    the eight checks which had all been dishonored. Complainant surmised that Atty.
    Presquitos refusal to pay may be due to his reliance on the influence of his fatherin-law, a former Executive Judge of the RTC (Cagayan de Oro), and of his uncle, an
    RTC judge (Cagayan de Oro).
    Facts:
    In September 1995, respondent was introduced to complainants late
    husband, Mr. Virgilio M. Espino. Mr. Espino regarding the sale of his piece of land
    with an area of 11,057.59 Esq. situated in Misamis Oriental. The discussion between
    Mr. Espino and the respondent resulted in the sale of the property to respondent.
    Under the terms of the agreement between Mr. Espino and respondent, the
    purchase price of the land was P1, 437,410.00, payable on a staggered basis and by
    installments. Pursuant to the terms of payment in the agreement, respondent
    issued eight post-dated checks, totaling P736,060.00. Meanwhile, the eight postdated checks issued by respondent were all dishonored. Mr. Espino made repeated
    demands for payment from respondent but the latter refused.
    His widow,
    complainant, then tried to collect from respondent the value of the eight checks.
    When complainants numerous pleas remained unheeded, she filed the complaint in
    June 1997.

    IBPs Recommendation:

    In the IBP-CBD report dated November 12, 2002, 12 Investigating


    Commissioner Caesar R. Dulay found that "the facts and credible evidence made
    available in this case indubitably establish respondents failure to live up to the
    demands of the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of
    Professional Ethics." For having failed to act with candor and fairness toward
    complainant, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended
    from the practice of law for six (6) months, and ordered to immediately account
    with complainant regarding the sale of the piece of land which had been subdivided
    in the name of respondent and his business partner. On June 21, 2003, the Board of
    Governors of the IBP passed a Resolution adopting/approving the Report and
    Recommendation of Commissioner Dulay, finding that "respondents lack of fairness
    and candor and honesty [was] in violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility."
    Issue:
    Whether or not respondents refusal payment of the eight dishonored checks
    failed to act with candor and fairness towards the complainant?
    Ruling:
    Yes. Having no legal defense to refuse payment of the eight dishonored
    checks, respondents indifference to complainants entreaties for payment was
    conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar and an officer of the court. Respondent
    violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by his unlawful, dishonest and
    deceitful conduct towards complainant and her late husband, first by allowing the
    eight (8) checks he issued to bounce, then by ignoring the repeated demands for
    payment until complainant was forced to file this complaint, and finally by
    deliberately delaying the disposition of this case with dilatory tactics. Considering
    that the property of complainant and her late husband is already in respondent and
    Mrs. Ares name, the injustice of respondents different maneuvers to evade
    payment of the eight checks - due and unpaid since 1996 - becomes more manifest.
    It should be stressed that respondent issued eight (8) worthless checks,
    seemingly without regard to its deleterious effects to public interest and public
    order. We have already declared, most recently in Lao v. Medel, that the issuance of
    worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, and puts the erring lawyers moral

    character in serious doubt, though it is not related to his professional duties as a


    member of the bar. He not only sets himself liable for a serious criminal offense
    under B.P. Blg. 22, but also transgresses the Code of Professional Responsibility,
    specifically the mandate of Canon 1 to obey the laws of the land and promote the
    respect for law.
    It behooves respondent to remember that a lawyer may be suspended or
    disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as
    long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
    demeanor.
    Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who
    issued worthless checks, we find respondents reprehensible conduct warrants
    suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

    You might also like