ARACELI S. DE JESUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CONSUELO COLLADO, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn
letter-complaint dated 3 February 1992 addressed to the Office of the Chief
Justice, Araceli De Jesus charged Consuelo Collado, Court Attorney IV in the
Office of the Clerk of Court (Third Division), Supreme Court, with committing
“the deceitful act of issuing nine (9) bouncing checks in the total amount
of P243,063.75, manifesting conduct unbecoming of a public servant and member
of the Bar.”^[1] In
another sworn letter-complaint dated 10 March 1992 filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant (docketed as Adm. Case No. 3806), the same complainant further
sought the disbarment of the respondent for committing that alleged deceitful
act.^[2]

A copy of the first letter complaint was served by the
complainant on the Chief Administrative Officer of the Supreme Court, Atty.
Adelaida C. Baumann.^[3] This
circumstance led to the commencement of an administrative investigation of
respondent for possible violation of the Civil Service Law.

In an Indorsement dated 12 February 1992, Atty. Baumann required
respondent to submit her comment on the letter-complaint of 3 February 1992
within five (5) days from notice thereof.^[4]
Respondent failed to submit a comment
despite due notice.

A second Indorsement dated 17 March 1992 was served on respondent
on 30 March 1992 and required her to answer the charge within seventy-two (72)
hours, as well as to indicate whether she wished to be heard in a formal
investigation. This Indorsement warned
respondent that a failure to answer the charge would be construed as waiver of
her right to be heard.^[5] No
answer or comment was ever received from respondent.^[6]

Meanwhile, acting on the disbarment complaint dated 10 March
1992, the Court resolved on 19 March 1992 to require respondent Atty. Collado
to submit a comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice.^[7]
Respondent complied with this resolution after considerable delay, submitting a
two-page comment for the purpose.^[8] In a
Resolution dated 2 June 1992, the Court, acting upon complainant’s “Urgent
Ex Parte Motion to Bar Atty. Collado’s Trip to
the United States” dated 7 May 1992, ordered the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation to issue a hold-departure order to stop respondent from leaving
the country.”^[9]

In a Resolution dated 28 July 1992, the Court further directed
the Office of Administrative Services to complete its civil service
disciplinary investigation of respondent’s case and to submit its report and
recommendation to the Court within thirty (30) days.^[10]
The required report, prepared by Atty. Ennar Cabanilla of the Complaints and
Investigation Division, was submitted to the Court on 7 September 1992.^[11]
The report summed up the facts of the case as follows:

“In said letter-complaint [dated 3 February 1992], it was
alleged: (1) that in November and December
1991, Collado obtained from complainant several merchandise; (2) that, as
payment for said merchandise, Collado issued postdated checks; (3) that, after
making good two or three checks, the others were dishonored by the drawee bank
due to insufficiency of funds and closed accounts; and (4) that despite
repeated demands, Collado failed to comply with her obligations. In support of her claim, complainant
attached therewith xerox copies of the dishonored checks.

x x x      x x x              x x
x

Pending resolution of the instant case, this Office was apprised by
complainant, through her submission of an affidavit of desistance dated 5
August 1992, that she is no longer interested to proceed with all the
administrative and criminal cases she filed against Collado since the latter
has already paid her obligation in full through the replacement of her
dishonored checks with cash.

x x x      x x x              x x x”^[12]

The bouncing checks respondent had issued gave rise to at least
nine criminal informations for estafa or violation of B.P. Blg. 22, against
respondent, who posted bail for her provisional liberty.^[13]
As far as the record is concerned, these criminal cases are still pending in
court.

No separate proceeding for the taking of evidence regarding the
disbarment complaint was undertaken. However, considering that respondent had been given due notice of the
fact that two (2) distinct proceedings had been instituted against her; that
she was given a fair opportunity to reply to the charges in both proceedings;
that she effectively waived such an opportunity in the civil service
disciplinary proceeding and that respondent had in fact replied to the charges
in the disbarment proceeding through the submission of a two-page comment, the
Court considers that there is no legal obstacle to a definitive resolution of
the two complaints filed against respondent.

Coming first to the complaint for disbarment, respondent Collado
admits that she had purchased merchandise from complainant De Jesus on credit,
with the intention of reselling the same to friends and neighbors. Respondent also admits having issued
postdated checks, allegedly upon complainant’s request in order to
“fix” respondent’s obligation to complainant. Respondent stated that her buyers did not
remit their payments to respondent, resulting in her inability to “fully
cover the figures mentioned in the check(s).” Respondent contends that her
transactions with complainant De Jesus were “purely private in character
and [did] not in any manner concern [her] being employed in the Supreme Court
and, likewise, [her] membership in the Bar.”^[14]

We note that respondent Collado had also admitted before the
Office of the Prosecutor of the City of Manila, during preliminary
investigation of the charges of estafa or violations of B.P. Blg. 22, that she
had issued the postdated checks which were dishonored upon their presentment.

In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22
has as yet been obtained against respondent Collado. We do not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal
charges raised against her is essential, so far as either the administrative or
civil service case or the disbarment charge against her is concerned.^[15]
Since she had admitted issuing the checks when she did not have enough money in
her bank account to cover the total amount thereof, it cannot be gainsaid that
the acts with which she was charged would constitute a crime penalized by B.P.
Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of
checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 constitutes serious
misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar. That misconduct was in effect compounded when, according to the
complainant, respondent was about to evade performance of her obligation by
leaving the country and proceeding to the United States, a course of action
frustrated by the hold-departure order issued by this Court and not denied by
respondent.

Time and again this Court has stressed that the conduct of
everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the judges to the
most junior of clerks, must at all times be characterized with propriety and decorum and be above suspicion.^[16]
The Court has also held that a member of the Bar must observe honesty and
fairness even in private transactions and that failure to do so may be a ground
for disciplinary action against the lawyer.^[17] In
the case at bar, respondent Collado failed to live up to the demanding
standards required from members of the Bar.

Turning to the administrative (civil service) disciplinary case
against respondent Collado, we agree with the investigating attorney that the
acts committed by respondent Collado also constitute serious misconduct which
is a ground under Civil Service law and regulations, for separation from the
service.^[18]

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to

(1) in the disciplinary proceedings addressed
to respondent Atty. Consuelo Collado as a member of the Bar, to SUSPEND respondent from the practice of
law for a period of one (1) year. A
copy of this Resolution shall be furnished to all the courts of the land for
their information and guidance. This
Resolution shall also be spread on the personal record of respondent Atty.
Collado in the Office of the Bar Confidant; and

(2) in the Civil Service disciplinary case, to
DISMISS respondent Collado from the service for serious misconduct, with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government service, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. All retirement benefits or privileges to which respondent may be
entitled, except leave credits already earned, are hereby DECLARED FORFEITED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Gutierrez,
Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Memorandum of the Office of
Administrative Services dated 27 August 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the
“OAS Memo”); Annex “K,” p. 1.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 1; OAS File on Atty. Consuelo Collado,
pp. 16-17.

^[3]
OAS Memo; Annex “K,” p. 2.

^[4]
Id., Annex “J.”

^[5]
Id., Annex “H.”

^[6]
Id., p. 1.

^[7]
Rollo, p. 21.

^[8]
Id., pp. 33 and 36.

^[9]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.

^[10]
Id., p. 50.

^[11]
OAS Memo, pp. 2-3.

^[12]
Id., pp. 1-2.

^[13]
Rollo, p. 39.

^[14]
Id., p. 34.

^[15]
See, e.g., Royong v. Oblena, 7 SCRA 867 (1963); and Seny v. Magat,
119 SCRA 111 (1982). See also the
following cases where the Court suspended from the practice of law lawyers who
had been acquitted of the criminal charges brought against them: Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 (1933);
In Re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 (1928); and In Re Terell, 2 Phil. 266 (1903).

^[16]
See Del Rosario v. Bascar, 206 SCRA 678, 686 (1992); Callejo, Jr. v.
Garcia, 206 SCRA 491, 496 (1992).

^[17]
Lizaso v. Amante, 198 SCRA 1, 9-11 (1991); Bautista v. Gonzales,
182 SCRA 151, 162 (1990).

^[18]
Section 46(b), sub-paragraph 4, Chapter 6, Sub-Title I, Book 5, Revised
Administrative Code of 1987; Memorandum Circular No. 30 of the Civil Service
Commission (series of 1989), paragraph A, sub-paragraph 3.