(A.c. No. 12209, February 18, 2020) Ruben A. Andaya, Complainant, v. Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda, 1 Respondent.

Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.
03 of CPR
SUSPENSION for (3) YEARS; Estafa and violation of (BP) 22
RUBEN A. ANDAYA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. EMMANUEL ALADIN A. TUMANDA
FACTS:
a. Respondent borrowed from complainant the amount of (P500,000.00). 3
b. He issued a post-dated check and it was dishonored as the account was closed.
c. Complainant, through counsel, sent a demand letter
d. Respondent offered as payment his Mercedes Benz, and accordingly, executed a DOS
e. He, however, failed to give the original copy of the CR bec. he forgot to bring it and did not
turn over the car because he still needed it for his business ventures.
f. Complainant later found out that respondent sold the same car to a certain John Edwin G.
Felizardo so he sent another demand letter and filed criminal complaints for Estafa and
violation of (BP) 22
g. Respondent failed to file an answer and to attend the mandatory conference before the IBP.
IBP Investigating Commissioner found the respondent guilty of violating Canon 1 of the CPR for
issuing a worthless check and recommended the suspension for (1) year with a stem warning. BOG
of the IBP adopted the findings but modified the suspension to three (3) years. CBD Director
explained that respondent's acts of repeatedly changing his address to evade his obligation and of
failing to answer and participate in the proceedings are aggravating circumstances. OBC
recommended the adoption of the Resolution of the IBP.
ISSUE: Whether respondent lawyer is guilty of violation of CPR
RULING:
YES. Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR state:
CANON 1— A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 — A Lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 — A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
xxxx
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.
Issuance of a worthless check constitutes gross misconduct. It indicates his unfitness for the trust
and confidence reposed upon him and his lack of personal honesty and good moral character
rendering him unworthy of public confidence.
The gravamen of the offense under BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check, or any
check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation; the law is
designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of issuing checks
with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime
against public order to be abated. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the
private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the
community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an
injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the
banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. 18
As a lawyer, he should know that he may be disciplined under Rule 138, Section 27 of the ROC:
Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds — A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other 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 admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do x x x.
Attendant circumstances
1. Respondent has acted in utmost bad faith when he sold to another person the MB. It is a
deceitful conduct that shows his lack of honesty and good moral character.
2. His deliberate failure to settle his obligation despite repeated demands is in itself a gross
misconduct.
3. He has been using several addresses to avoid being traced and to evade his obligation. Such
aberrant behavior of respondent lays bare his lack of integrity and moral soundness.
4. His refusal to answer and to appear in the mandatory conferences causing undue delay

(A.c. No. 12209, February 18, 2020) Ruben A. Andaya, Complainant, v. Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda, 1 Respondent.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(A.c. No. 12209, February 18, 2020) Ruben A. Andaya, Complainant, v. Atty. Emmanuel Aladin A. Tumanda, 1 Respondent.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.

RUBEN A. ANDAYA, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. EMMANUEL ALADIN A. TUMANDA

ISSUE: Whether respondent lawyer is guilty of violation of CPR

You might also like