De Espino Vs Atty. Presquito
De Espino Vs Atty. Presquito
vs. ATTY.
PEPITO
C.
RESOLUTION
PUNO, J.:
On June 9, 1997, Linda Vda. de Espino wrote a letter-complaint 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. 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 amounts 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 father-in-law, a former Executive Judge of the
RTC (Cagayan de Oro), and of his uncle, an RTC judge (Cagayan de Oro).
[1]
[2]
The records show that sometime in September 1995, respondent was introduced to
complainants late husband, Mr. Virgilio M. Espino. Mr. Espino, a resident
of Davao City, had sought the assistance of respondent, a resident of Cagayan de Oro,
regarding the sale of his piece of land with an area of 11,057.59 sq.m. 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.
Respondent then entered into a joint venture or partnership agreement with Mrs.
Guadalupe Ares for the subdivision of the land into home-size lots and its development,
with a portion of the land retained by respondent for his own use. The land was
eventually titled in the name of respondent and Mrs. Ares, and subdivided into 35 to 36
lots.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
to collect from respondent the value of the eight checks. When complainants
numerous pleas remained unheeded, she filed the complaint in June 1997.
In his comment dated September 22, 1997, respondent denied any wrongdoing,
and said that the allegations that he had employed fraud, trickery and dishonest
means with the late Mr. Espino were totally false and baseless. The complaint,
according to respondent, stemmed from complainants lack of knowledge as to the real
story of the transaction between complainants husband and respondent. He also
vehemently took exception to the imputation that he was banking on the influence of his
father-in-law and uncle-in-law.
Respondent does not deny the issuance of the eight checks. What respondent
claims, however, is that the nonpayment was justified by the unresolved problems he
and Mrs. Ares have with respect to the right-of-way of the land. He alleged that Mr.
Espino had made assurances that the land had a right-of-way required for its
development, but respondent later found out that such road-right-of-way required the
consent of four other land owners, and the expense would be considerably more than
he was made to believe. According to respondent, he and Mr. Espino had agreed that
the latter would not encash the checks or demand the equivalent of the same until the
right-of-way problem of the land had been resolved. Respondents position is that until
the problem of obtaining a right-of-way to the land has been resolved, nothing has yet
accrued against him or Mrs. Ares (his partner), as it would be very unfair and unjust for
them to pay Mr. Espino when the land could not be developed and sold.
[8]
[9]
Respondent also alleged that he was entitled to set-off against the amount he owes
Mr. Espino or his heirs from the purchase of the land, the advances he made to Mr.
Espino, and the cost he incurred when he defended Mr. Espinos son in a criminal
case. He later on manifested that he has fully paid the portion of the land which had
been titled in his name through the same advances and incurred expenses.
[10]
In a resolution dated November 26, 1997, the case was referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation/decision, and
assigned to the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD).
[11]
After a careful consideration of the record of the instant case, we agree that
respondent was wanting in fairness, candor and honesty demanded of him by the Code
[14]
Respondent claims that his failure to present evidence was due to his financial
difficulties, i.e., he could not afford to spend for travel expenses of his witnesses. We
are not persuaded. First, it boggles the mind how financial constraints could have
prevented respondent from presenting the originals of the documents attached to his
comment, proving, among others, the alleged advances and costs on Mr. Espinos
behalf. The originals of these documents are presumably in his possession. Second,
with respect to the absence of testimony, respondent could have submitted the affidavits
of his witnesses - the taking of which he could have done himself in Cagayan de Oro to
keep down the cost. The records are clear that he was allowed this option. But he did
neither.
[16]
[17]
Even if we were to excuse respondents procedural lapse and consider his written
pleadings as testimony, we agree with Commissioner Dulay that respondents problems
with respect to the right-of-way or his partnership with Mrs. Ares do not excuse his
nonpayment. As stated in the IBP-CBD report:
[T]he solution to the right-of-way problem however clearly lies in the hands of respondent.We
note that respondent has already taken title over the property together with Guadalupe Ares by
making complainants late husband, sign over the property by way of the Deed of Sale. We
therefore find respondents position vis--vis the widowed complainant sneaky and unfair. We
reiterate that respondent has assumed responsibility for the negotiations on the road-right-of-way
and was aware of the problem. To [sic] our mind he has used the alleged road-right-of-way
problem only as an afterthought and a reason to delay and in fact deny the complainant payment
of what is due her. Respondent also alleges and blames the deceased husband of complainant for
the failed project but the facts show otherwise. They are just bare allegations and remain
unsubstantiated. Besides, respondent and Ares took risks in the business venture and are now the
titled owners of the property. The seller cannot be blamed for any failure in the
project. Respondents actuations in the whole transaction is [sic] not at par with the standards
demanded of him as a member of the bar. Respondent is lacking in fairness and candour [sic]
and honesty. The fact that he has unreasonably delayed and failed to account with complainant
for a long time and the fact of his having allowed the checks he issued to bounce is [sic]
unacceptable and censurable behavior for a member of the bar. [citations omitted]
[19]
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.
[21]
[22]
continuing qualification for all members of the bar. A lawyer may be disciplined for any
conduct, in his professional or private capacity, that renders him unfit to continue to be
an officer of the court. Thus, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
[23]
[24]
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
Given the foregoing, and in line with jurisprudence involving lawyers who issued
worthless checks - Lao v. Medel, Co v. Bernardino, and Ducat v. Villalon, Jr., we find respondents reprehensible conduct warrants suspension from the practice of
law for one (1) year.
[25]
[26]
[27]