OCA CIRCULAR NO. 33-2004, February 27, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted
hereunder is the Decision of the Court En Bane dated July 29, 2003 in
Administrative Case No. 4838 entitled “Emilio Grande vs. Atty.
Bvangeline De Silva”, to wit:

“Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in
Criminal Cases Nos. 96-1346 to 96-1353, filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Marikina City , Branch 273, for Estafa and Violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22, entitled ‘People of the Philippines, Plaintiff
versus Sergio Natividad, Accused.’ During the proceedings, respondent
Atty, Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered “to
complainant Check No. 0023638 in the amount; P144,768.00, drawn against
her account with the Philippine National Bank, as settlement of the
civil aspect of the case against her client. Complainant refused to
accept the check, but respondent assured him that the same will be paid
upon its presentment to her drawee bank. She manifested that as a
lawyer, she would not issue a check which is, hot sufficiently funded.
Thus, respondent was, prevailed upon by complainant to accept the check.
Consequently, he desisted from participating as a complaining witness
in the criminal case, which ;led to the dismissal of the same and the
release of the accused, Sergio Natividad.

When, complainant deposited the check, the same was returned
unpaid, by .the drawee bank for the reason: ‘Account Closed,’ On June
19,1997, .complainant wrote a letter to respondent demanding that she
pay the face value of the check.^[1]
However, his demand was ignored by respondent; hence, he instituted a
criminal complaint against her for Estafa and Violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 with the Office ‘of the City Prosecutor of Marikina,
which was docketed as I.S. No. 97-1036. On September 22, 1997, the
Marikina City Prosecutor filed the, necessary information for violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 against respondent Atty. Evangelista de
Silva.^[2]

On November 10, 1997, complainant filed the instant
administrative complaint for disbarment of respondent for deceit and .
violation of the Lawyer’s Oath.^[3]

In a Resolution dated February 2, 1998 sent to respondent’s
given address at Carrnelo Compound, Newton Avenue, Mayamot, Antipolo
City, she was required to comment on the complaint witliin ten (10) days
from notice.^[4] However, it was returned unserved with the notation “Moved”.^[5] The Assistant National Secretary of the IBP submitted the latest address of respondent as 274 M.H. Del Filar Street, PasigCity.^[6]

On June 20, 2001, another resolution requiring respondent to
comment on the administrative complaint filed against her was
served at the aforesaid address. Tins was again returned unserved with
the notation: “Refused”, Thus,-the-case was referred to the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBF-CBD) for investigation, report and
recommendation.^[7]

In a Report dated December 6, 2001, Investigating Commissiqner
Florimoad C. Rous found respondent guilty of deceit, gross misconduct
and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. Thus, he recommended that respondent
be suspended torn .the practice of law for two (2) years.

On October-19, 2002, the IBP Board of Governors passed
Resolution No. XV-2002-554 which adopted the recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner that respondent be suspended from
the.practice of law for two (2) years.

We fully agree with the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

The record shows that respondent prevailed upon complainant to
accept her personal ‘check by.way of settlement for the civil liability,
of .her client; Sergio Natividad, with the assurance that the check
will, have sufficient fluids when presented for payment. In doing, so,
she deceived complainant into, withdrawing his complaint against her orient in exchange for a check which she drew against a closed
account.

It is clear that the breach of trust committed by respondent in
issuing a bouncing check amounted to deceit and constituted a violation
of her oath, for which she should be accordingly penalized,^[8]
Such an act constitutes gross misconduct and the penalties for such
malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court,
to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefore. —
A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or ether 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 the admission to practice,
or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party ,
without authority to do so.

The nature of the office of art attorney requires that a lawyer
shall be a person of good moral character. Since this qualification is a
condition precedent to a license to enter upon the practice of law, the
maintenance thereof is equally essential during the continuance of the
practice and the exercise of the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts
the lawyer’s moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to
continue hi the practice of law.^[9]

The loss of moral character of ; a lawyer for any reason whatsoever; shall warrant her suspension or disbarment,^[10] because it is important that members of the legal brotherhood must conform to the highest standard of moratilty.^[11]
Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession,
whether it be professional or, non-professional, justifies disciplinary
action. Thus, a lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt
validly incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a
member of .the bar, for a; lawyer’s professional and persona! conduct
must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.^[12]

Moreover, the attitude of respondent .in deliberately refusing
to accept the notices served on her betrays” a deplorably willful
character, or disposition which stains the nobility of the legal
profession.^[13] Her conduct
not only underscores her utter lack of respect-for-authority; it, also
brings to. the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw in. her
psyche, which renders highly questionable her. moral .fitness to
continue in the .practice of law a defiance for law; and order which is
at the very core of her profession.

Such defiance is anathema to those who seek a career in the
administration of justice because obedience to the dictates of the law
and justice is demanded of every lawyer. How else would respondent even
endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow
even simple directives? Indeed, the first and foremost command of the
Code of Professional Responsibility could not be any clearer:

CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Needless to state, respondent’s persistent refusal to comply with
lawful orders directed at her with not even an explanation for doing so
is contumacious conduct which merits no compassion. The duty of a lawyer
is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all
times. She can only do this by faithfully performing her duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients.^[14] We can not tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair aarae of ah honorable profession.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent A’ EVANGELINE DE SILVA
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of Two (2) Years,
effective upon receipt hereof. Let copies of this Decision be entered in
her record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and
guidance.

SOORDERED.”

In, a resolution dated 13 January 2004 in this administrative
case, the Court Resolved to consider as SERVED the copy of the Decision
of 29 July 2003 sent to respondent-.at her given address at 274 M.K. del
Filar Street, 1600 Pasig City, under Registry No. 18378 which copy was
returned unserved with the notation “RTS-moved” on the envelope.

__27__ February 2004.

 ^[2] Id., pp. 5-6.

 ^[3] Id., pp. 1-3.

 ^[4] Id., p. 7.

 ^[5] Id., p. 16.

 ^[6] Id., p. 21.

 ^[7] Id., p. 27.

 ^[8] Cesar A Espiritu. Atty.; Juaa Cabredo IV, A.M. No. 5831, 13 January 2003 .

 ^[9]
Balinon v. De Leon, 94 Phil. 277 [1954].

 ^[10] Royong v. Oblena, 117 Phil. 865 [1963]; In re De Ios Angeles, 106 Phil. 1 [1959]; Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586 [1956].

 ^[11] Pangan v. Ramos, 194 Phil., 1 [1981].

 ^[12] Constantino v. Saludages AM. No. 2029; 7 December 1993, 228 SCRA 233.

 ^[13] Sencio v. Calvadores, A.M. No. 5841, 20 January 2003

 ^[14] Reyes v. Javier, A. C. No. 5574, 2 February 2002.