FACTS:

In the case of Tuanda v. Court of Appeals, the respondent, Fe T. Tuanda, filed a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension with the Supreme Court, asking for the lifting of her suspension from the practice of law. In December 1983, respondent received jewelry from Herminia Marquez for sale on a commission basis. The agreement was that she would return the unsold items and turn over the sales proceeds to Marquez by February 14, 1984. Instead, respondent issued three checks with a total amount of P26,250.00, all of which were dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficient funds. Respondent did not make any effort to settle her obligations or make arrangements with the bank. Four criminal cases were filed against her, with the trial court acquitting her of estafa but convicting her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Respondent appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and also suspended her from the practice of law. Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court, but the Court noted it without action, declaring that the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory. In her Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, respondent claimed that she did not violate her oath as a member of the Bar and that she believed she was innocent of the offense charged and had no intention to cause damage. The Supreme Court affirmed the suspension imposed by the Court of Appeals, stating that the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involved moral turpitude and was a serious criminal offense that affects public interest and order. The Court cited Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provide for the removal or suspension of an attorney for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the attorney's oath, disobedience of lawful orders, or corrupt appearance as an attorney. The Court also emphasized that the crimes of which respondent was convicted imported deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and Code of Professional Responsibility. Therefore, the Court denied the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, and respondent remained suspended from the practice of law until further orders from the Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent violated her oath as a member of the Philippine Bar when she issued bouncing checks.

2. Whether or not the offense for which the respondent was found guilty involved moral turpitude.

RULING:

1. The Court affirms the suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals upon respondent Tuanda. The Court finds that the respondent violated her oath as a member of the Philippine Bar when she issued bouncing checks, which constitutes gross misconduct and a violation of her attorney's oath.

2. The Court also agrees with the Court of Appeals that the offense for which the respondent was found guilty involved moral turpitude. Violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which prohibits the making and issuing of worthless checks, is considered a serious criminal offense that affects public interest and public order.

PRINCIPLES:

• Violation of B.P. Blg. 22, which prohibits the making and issuing of worthless checks, is a serious criminal offense that affects public interest and public order.

• Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for the suspension or removal of a lawyer from the practice of law.