EN BANC purchase a taxi, repair their dilapidated house, and hold a debut

party for their daughter.7

A.C. No. 6955 July 27, 2006
They were able to purchase a secondhand taxi, and Atty. Vitan
MAR YUSON, complainant, helped him with all the legal matters concerning this purchase.
vs. Regrettably, their other plans were put on hold, because the
ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, respondent. lawyer borrowed P100,000 from them in December 2002. It was
agreed that the loan would be repaid before the end of the
following year,8 in time for the debut on November 24, 2003.9
DECISION

To guarantee payment, respondent executed in favor of

PANGANIBAN, C.J.:
complainant several postdated checks to cover the loaned
amount. Those checks, however, turned out to be worthless,
Once again this Court exhorts members of the bar to live up to the because they had been drawn against the lawyer's closed account
strictures of the Lawyers' Oath, the Code of Professional in the Bank of Commerce in Escolta, Manila. The six dishonored
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics. Otherwise, checks were presented during the hearing before the IBP
they shall be sanctioned by this Court. commissioner.10

The Case Complainant maintained that he had repeatedly tried to recover

the debt, only to be turned away empty-handed each time. He
Before us is a Letter-Complaint1 for the disbarment of Atty. conceded, though, that respondent had given an undisclosed
Jeremias R. Vitan, filed by Mar Yuson with the Commission on Bar amount covered by the checks dated January and February
Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). 2003.11 The amounts covered by the dishonored checks remained
Respondent was accused of taking advantage of complainant's unpaid.
generosity and credulity.
This development prompted complainant to seek the aid of the
On August 5, 2004, IBP-CBD directed Atty. Vitan to submit his IBP National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) in obtaining
Answer within 15 days from receipt of the Order;2otherwise, he payment. On November 14, 2003, the IBP-NCLA, through Deputy
would be considered in default and the case heard ex parte. Director Rosalie J. de la Cruz, sent him a letter.12 It informed him
of the impending administrative case and advised him to confer
Because respondent failed to submit his Answer within the given with complainant, presumably to settle the matter. Upon
period, the CBD considered his failure and non-appearance as a receipt13 of the letter, he again gave assurances that he would pay
waiver of his right to participate in the proceedings.3 Thus, the the loan in time for the debut.14
hearing scheduled for August 11, 2005, pushed through, with the
original copies of the checks he had issued presented by When the date passed without any payment, complainant
complainant as evidence. Afterwards, the CBD issued an Order demanded a collateral to secure the loan. Thus, in his favor, Atty.
submitting the case for Resolution.4 On August 23, 2005, Vitan executed a document denominated as a Deed of Absolute
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan rendered her Report and Sale, covering the latter's parcel of land located in Sta. Maria,
Recommendation.5 Bulacan. According to complainant, their intention was to transfer
the title of the property to him temporarily, so that he could either
Respondent denied having received a copy of the Complaint sell or mortgage15 it. It was further agreed that, if it was
against him and alleged that it was only on August 24, 2005, that mortgaged, respondent would redeem it as partial or full payment
he received the Order submitting the case for resolution. Thus, he of the loan.16
filed an Urgent Motion to Revive/Re-open and with Leave to
Admit Attached Answer.6 Curiously, however, the parties executed a second Deed of
Absolute Sale,17 this time in favor of Atty. Vitan, with complainant
In its Resolution No. XVII-2005-101 dated October 22, 2005, the as vendor. The purpose of this particular document was not
IBP Board of Directors adopted and approved, with modification, explained by either party.
the investigating commissioner's Report and Recommendation.
Upon respondent was imposed the penalty of suspension from On April 12, 2004, complainant was able to mortgage 18 the
the practice of law for two years, after the board found that he property for P30,000.19 Contrary to their earlier agreement,
had taken advantage of complainant through deceit and respondent did not redeem it from the mortgagee and, instead,
dishonesty. The lawyer was further ordered to give back the simply sent complainant a letter20 dated July 7, 2004, promising to
money he had received from complainant. pay on or before July 12, 2004. As this promise was not fulfilled,
the mortgagee demanded payment from complainant and
The Facts thereby allegedly exposed the latter to shame and ridicule.21

Complainant Mar Yuson was a taxi driver with eight children. In On July 19, 2004, IBP-NCLA sent another letter22 on behalf of
October 2002, he received a sum of money by way of inheritance. complainant. Respondent was informed that an administrative
According to him, he and his wife intended to use the money to
case would be filed against him, unless he settled his obligations respondent admitted having incurred the P100,000 loan. It was
by July 30, 2004, the date given by complainant. only in his Answer34 that the lawyer suddenly denied that he had
personally incurred this obligation. This time, he pointed to his
On August 30, 2004, the IBP-NCLA received the reply23 dated July employee, Estur, as the true debtor. We find his version of the
30, 2004, submitted by Atty. Vitan who explained that he had facts implausible.
already settled his obligation. He maintained that he had in fact
executed, in complainant's favor, a Deed of Absolute Sale over his First, the story involving a certain Evelyn Estur was clearly a mere
203-square-meter residential property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. He afterthought, conjured simply to escape his liability. If it were true
clarified that "[their] understanding was that [complainant] ha[d] that it was she who owed the money, he should have mentioned
the option to use, mortgage or sell [the property] and return to this alleged fact in his letter to the IBP NCLA deputy director.
me the excess of the proceeds after obtaining his money Instead, respondent was completely silent about Estur and merely
represented by my six (6) dishonored checks."24Interestingly, asserted that he had already settled his debt with complainant.
respondent attached the Deed of Absolute Sale in which he was
the vendee and complainant the vendor.25 It appears that this was Second, the promise of Atty. Vitan to settle his obligations on
the second Deed of Absolute Sale, also referred to in the particular dates is contained in two handwritten notes signed by
Complaint.26 him and worded as follows:

Only after the IBP investigating commissioner had rendered her "I undertake to settle the financial obligations
Report and Recommendation27 did Atty. Vitan submit his Answer of P100,000 – plus before the end of the year."35
to the Letter-Complaint. He called the second document a
"Counter Deed of Sale," executed as a "sort of collateral/security
"Mar:
for the account of [his] liaison officer [Evelyn Estur]." 28 He
admitted having given several postdated checks amounting
to P100,000, supposedly to guarantee the indebtedness of Estur "We will settle on July 12, 2004, on or before said
to complainant. Atty. Vitan argued for the first time that it was she date."36
who had incurred the debts, and that he had acted only as a
"character reference and/or guarantor."29 He maintained that he The wordings of these promissory notes disclose that he had a
had given in to the one-sided transactions, because he was personal obligation to complainant, without any mention of Estur
"completely spellbound by complainant's seeming sincerity and at all. If it were true that Atty. Vitan had executed those notes for
kindness."30 To corroborate his statements, he attached Estur's the account of his liaison officer, he should have used words to
Affidavit.31 that effect. As a lawyer, he was aware that the preparation of
promissory notes was not a "mere formality;" it had legal
Report of the Investigating Commissioner consequences. It is quite far-fetched for a lawyer to assume the
role of guarantor, without saying so in the notes.
In her Report and Recommendation, Commissioner San Juan
recommended that Atty. Vitan be suspended until his restitution A lawyer may be disciplined for evading the payment of a debt
of the amount he had borrowed. She held that respondent, having validly incurred.37 In this case, the failure of Atty. Vitan to pay his
taken advantage of complainant and thus shown dishonesty and debt for over three years despite repeated demands puts in
untrustworthiness, did not deserve to retain his membership in question his standing as a member of the bar. Worse, he made
the bar. several promises to pay his debt promptly, but reneged on all of
them. He even started to hide from complainant according to the
latter .38
On November 24, 2005, the Supreme Court received the IBP
Resolution adopting, with modification, the Report and
Recommendation of the investigating commissioner. Failure to honor just debts, particularly from clients, constitutes
dishonest conduct that does not speak well of a member of the
bar.39 It is vital that a lawyer's conduct be kept beyond reproach
The Court's Ruling
and above suspicion at all times. Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility clearly provides that lawyers must not
We agree with the findings of the IBP Board of Governors, but engage in unlawful, immoral or deceitful conduct. They must
reduce the period of suspension to six months. comport themselves in a manner that will secure and preserve the
respect and confidence of the public for the legal profession.40
Respondent's Administrative Liability
Atty. Vitan contends that his obligation was already extinguished,
Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. They because he had allegedly sold his Bulacan property to
are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high complainant.41 Basically, respondent is asserting that what had
standard of ethics, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In this way, transpired was a dation in payment. Governed by the law on sales,
the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is it is a transaction that takes place when a piece of property is
ensured.32 alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money. 42 It
involves delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing -- by
In the present case, Atty. Vitan undoubtedly owed money to the debtor to the creditor -- as an accepted equivalent of the
complainant. In a letter33 to IBP Deputy Director de la Cruz, performance of the obligation.43
Going over the records of this case, we find the contention of Atty. "Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
Vitan undeserving of credence. The records reveal that he did not dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
really intend to sell and relinquish ownership over his property in
Sta. Maria, Bulacan, notwithstanding the execution of a Deed of Any wrongdoing, whether professional or nonprofessional,
Absolute Sale in favor of complainant. The second Deed of indicating unfitness for the profession justifies disciplinary
Absolute Sale, which reconveyed the property to respondent, is action.48
proof that he had no such intention. This second Deed, which he
referred to as his "safety net,"44 betrays his intention to
There is yet another reason to find Atty. Vitan administratively
counteract the effects of the first one .
liable. In his letter of July 30, 2004, was an admission that the
personal checks he issued in favor of complainant had all been
In a manner of speaking, Atty. Vitan was taking back with his right dishonored.49 Whether those checks were issued for the account
hand what he had given with his left. The second Deed of Absolute of respondent or of Estur is not important. The fact remains that
Sale returned the parties right back where they started, as if there the lawyer knowingly issued worthless checks and thus revealed
were no sale in favor of complainant to begin with. In effect, on his disposition to defraud complainant.
the basis of the second Deed of Sale, respondent took back and
asserted his ownership over the property despite having allegedly
The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to
sold it. Thus, he fails to convince us that there was a bona fide
cover them -- or, worse, drawn against a closed account --
dation in payment or sale that took place between the parties;
constitutes such willful dishonesty and unethical conduct as to
that is, that there was an extinguishment of obligation.
undermine the public confidence in the law and in lawyers.50 The
act also manifests a low regard for the Oath taken by the lawyer
It appears that the true intention of the parties was to use the upon joining the profession, whose image should be held in high
Bulacan property to facilitate payment. They only made it appear esteem, not seriously and irreparably tarnished.51
that the title had been transferred to complainant to authorize
him to sell or mortgage the property.45Atty. Vitan himself
Moreover, the inimical effect of the issuance of worthless checks
admitted in his letter dated July 30, 2004, that their intention was
has been recognized by this Court in an earlier case, from which
to convert the property into cash, so that payment could be
we quote:
obtained by complainant and the excess returned to
respondent.46 The records, however, do not show that the
proceeds derived were sufficient to discharge the obligation of "[T]he effect [of issuance of worthless checks]
the lawyer fully; thus, he is still liable to the extent of the transcends the private interests of the parties directly
deficiency. 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
We hasten to add, however, that this administrative case is not
to the public since the circulation of valueless
the proper venue for us to determine the extent of the remaining
commercial papers can very well pollute the channels of
liability. This Court will not act as a collection agency from
trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
faltering debtors, when the amount of the indebtedness is
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public
indefinite and disputed.47
interest."52

Nevertheless, the records satisfactorily reveal the failure of

We have also held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and
respondent to live up to his duties as a lawyer in consonance with
the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross
the strictures of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional
misconduct,53 for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one
Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics, thereby
year's suspension from the practice of law,54 or a suspension of six
degrading not only his person but his profession as well. So far,
months upon partial payment of the obligation.55
we find that his lack of sincerity in fulfilling his obligations is
revealed by his acts of issuing promissory notes and reneging on
them; executing a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale; and breaking In the instant case, complainant himself admits that respondent
his promise to redeem the property from the mortgagee. had already paid the amounts covered by the January and
February checks.56 Thus, there has been a partial payment that
justifies a modification of IBP's recommended penalty.
The repeated failure of Atty. Vitan to fulfill his promise puts in
question his integrity and character. Indeed, not only his integrity
as an individual but, more important, his stature as a member of WHEREFORE, Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan is hereby found guilty of
the bar is affected by his acts of welching on his promises and gross misconduct and SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six
misleading complainant. Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of (6) months, effective upon his receipt of this Decision, with the
Professional Responsibility explicitly state thus: warning that a repetition of the same or any other misconduct will
be dealt with more severely.
"CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law Let a copy of this Decision be entered in respondent's record as a
and legal processes. member of the Bar, and notice served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for
circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.

Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,

Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna,
Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr., J.J., concur.