1) Attorney Evangeline de Silva issued a check to settle a civil case against her client, assuring the complainant it would clear, but the account was closed.
2) When the check bounced, the IBP found the attorney guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath for issuing a bad check.
3) The Supreme Court suspended the attorney for 2 years, finding her actions constituted gross misconduct and violated the rules requiring lawyers to be of good moral character and uphold the law.
1) Attorney Evangeline de Silva issued a check to settle a civil case against her client, assuring the complainant it would clear, but the account was closed.
2) When the check bounced, the IBP found the attorney guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath for issuing a bad check.
3) The Supreme Court suspended the attorney for 2 years, finding her actions constituted gross misconduct and violated the rules requiring lawyers to be of good moral character and uphold the law.
1) Attorney Evangeline de Silva issued a check to settle a civil case against her client, assuring the complainant it would clear, but the account was closed.
2) When the check bounced, the IBP found the attorney guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath for issuing a bad check.
3) The Supreme Court suspended the attorney for 2 years, finding her actions constituted gross misconduct and violated the rules requiring lawyers to be of good moral character and uphold the law.
1) Attorney Evangeline de Silva issued a check to settle a civil case against her client, assuring the complainant it would clear, but the account was closed.
2) When the check bounced, the IBP found the attorney guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and violating her oath for issuing a bad check.
3) The Supreme Court suspended the attorney for 2 years, finding her actions constituted gross misconduct and violated the rules requiring lawyers to be of good moral character and uphold the law.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Emilio Grande vs. Atty.
Evangeline de IBP found respondent guilty of deceit,
Silva gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. Thus, he recommended Facts: that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. Complainant Emilio Grande was the private offended party in a criminal case, Issue: WON respondent should be for Estafa and BP22 in RTC Marikina suspended. against Sergio Natividad. During the proceedings, respondent Atty. Held: Evangeline de Silva, counsel for the accused, tendered to complainant a The record shows that respondent check in the amount of P144,768.00, prevailed upon complainant to accept drawn against her account with the her personal check by way of settlement Philippine National Bank, as settlement for the civil liability of her client, Sergio of the civil aspect of the case against Natividad, with the assurance that the her client. Complainant refused to check will have sufficient funds when accept the check, but respondent presented for payment. In doing so, she assured him that the same will be paid deceived complainant into withdrawing upon its presentment to her drawee his complaint against her client in bank. She manifested that as a lawyer, exchange for a check which she drew she would not issue a check which is against a closed account. not sufficiently funded. Thus, It is clear that the breach of trust respondent was prevailed upon by committed by respondent in issuing a complainant to accept the check. bouncing check amounted to deceit and Consequently, he desisted from constituted a violation of her oath, for participating as a complaining witness in which she should be accordingly the criminal case, which led to the penalized.Such an act constitutes gross dismissal of the same and the release of misconduct and the penalties for such the accused, Sergio Natividad. malfeasance is prescribed by Rule 138, When complainant deposited the check Section 27 of the Rules of Court, to wit: he was told the account was closed. He demanded the payment of the check SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of from respondent which she ignored so attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds she filed a criminal case, for Estafa and therefore. – A member of the bar may BP22 in RTC Marikina against Atty. De be disbarred or suspended from his Silva and a disbarment case of office as attorney by the Supreme Court respondent for deceit and violation of for any deceit, malpractice or other the Lawyer’s Oath. gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral notices served on her betrays a turpitude, or for any violation of the oath deplorably willful character or disposition which he is required to take before the which stains the nobility of the legal admission to practice, or for a willful profession. Her conduct not only disobedience appearing as attorney for underscores her utter lack of respect for a party without authority to do so. authority; it also brings to the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw The nature of the office of an attorney in her psyche which renders highly requires that a lawyer shall be a person questionable her moral fitness to of good moral character. Since this continue in the practice of law: a qualification is a condition precedent to defiance for law and order which is at a license to enter upon the practice of the very core of her profession. law, the maintenance thereof is equally Such defiance is anathema to those essential during the continuance of the who seek a career in the administration practice and the exercise of the of justice because obedience to the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts dictates of the law and justice is the lawyer’s moral character in serious demanded of every lawyer. How else doubt may render her unfit to continue in would respondent even endeavor to the practice of law. serve justice and uphold the law when she disdains to follow even simple The loss of moral character of a lawyer directives? Indeed, the first and for any reason whatsoever shall warrant foremost command of the Code of her suspension or disbarment, because Professional Responsibility could not be it is important that members of the legal any clearer: brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of morality. Any CANON 1. A LAWYER SHALL wrongdoing which indicates moral UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OBEY unfitness for the profession, whether it THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND be professional or non-professional, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LEGAL justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a PROCESSES. lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Needless to state, respondent’s Such conduct is unbecoming and does persistent refusal to comply with lawful not speak well of a member of the bar, orders directed at her with not even an for a lawyer’s professional and personal explanation for doing so is conduct must at all times be kept contumacious conduct which merits no beyond reproach and above suspicion. compassion. The duty of a lawyer is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the Moreover, the attitude of respondent in legal profession at all times. She can deliberately refusing to accept the only do this by faithfully performing her duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to her clients. We cannot tolerate any misconduct that tends to besmirch the fair name of an honorable profession.