FACTS:

Linda Vda. de Espino filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Pepito C. Presquito for refusing to pay her late husband the sum of P763,060.00, resulting in his death. The complaint alleged that the respondent issued eight dishonored checks and despite numerous demands, still refused to pay. The respondent assisted Mr. Espino in selling his land and purchased it under an agreement, but the checks issued were all dishonored. Mr. Espino demanded payment, but the respondent refused. Mr. Espino passed away, and his widow filed the complaint. The respondent argued that nonpayment was justified by unresolved problems regarding the right-of-way of the land and that he was entitled to set-off the amount owed against advances made to Mr. Espino and legal expenses incurred. The Investigating Commissioner found the respondent lacking fairness and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings but deemed the recommended penalty as too light.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent Atty. Pepito C. Presquito violated the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics.

2. Whether or not the recommended penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law is appropriate for respondent's misconduct.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Pepito C. Presquito to be wanting in fairness, candor, and honesty, as required by the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics. However, the Court deemed the recommended penalty of six (6) months suspension to be too light considering the respondent's gross misconduct.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lawyers are expected to act with candor and fairness towards their clients and the public.

• Violation of the Lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics can result in disciplinary action and suspension from the practice of law.