View full case

TITA MANGAYAN v. ATTY. CIPRIANO G. ROBIELOS III

## FACTS:

The case involves a verified disbarment complaint filed by complainant Tita Mangayan against respondent Atty. Cipriano G. Robielos III (respondent). Complainant accuses respondent of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complaint stemmed from a loan that respondent contracted from complainant in 1995 amounting to P594,185.00. Respondent issued four postdated checks as payment, but the checks were dishonored. Complainant then filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), but the case was archived due to respondent's failure to attend the arraignment. After several years, respondent was arrested, and he entered into a Compromise Agreement with complainant, wherein he agreed to replace the dishonored checks. However, the replacement checks were also dishonored. Respondent was also indebted to another person, Elizabeth Macapia, and the checks he issued to her were likewise dishonored. As a result of these incidents, complainant initiated the disbarment proceedings against respondent.

The complainant filed a complaint against Attorney Cipriano G. Robielos III for failing to pay his debts and for issuing worthless checks as payment. In his Answer, the respondent admitted that he owed the complainant money but insisted that he had already settled his obligations. The complainant, in her Reply, denied having any dealings with the respondent and emphasized that he presented no evidence to support his claims.

The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline for investigation. However, the respondent did not appear before the investigating commissioner for mandatory conferences and did not comply with the orders to file necessary documents. Consequently, the case was submitted for resolution, and the investigating commissioner recommended a two-year suspension for the respondent.

The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation with modification, imposing a one-year suspension instead. This decision was based on the respondent's failure to pay his debts and the issuance of worthless checks. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors, stressing that lawyers must uphold the highest moral standards and conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. Failure to pay debts and issuing worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, warranting disciplinary action against the lawyer.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the respondent lawyer, Atty. Cipriano G. Robielos III, can be administratively liable for his acts of failing to settle his debts as they fell due and issuing worthless checks as payment for such debts.

  2. Whether the mere intention to pay, or being an accommodation party, absolves or mitigates the liability of a lawyer under the circumstances present in this case.

RULING

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty. Cipriano G. Robielos III is administratively liable. The deliberate failure to settle debts and issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be suspended from the practice of law. Such acts demonstrate a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him and indicate a lack of personal honesty and good moral character which is demanded of every lawyer.

  2. The Supreme Court emphasized that being an accommodation party does not absolve a lawyer from liability. An accommodation party is liable just as a primary party to the debt. The Court noted that respondent’s excuse of being an accommodation party and promise to pay the obligations did not relieve him of his obligations or the consequences of his actions. The Court found his defenses unpersuasive and indicative of moral turpitude.

PRINCIPLES

  1. Issuance of Worthless Checks and Nonpayment of Debts by Lawyers: The deliberate failure to pay just debts and issuance of worthless checks by lawyers are acts constitutive of gross misconduct, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

  2. Responsibility of Lawyers to Uphold Moral Character: Lawyers must at all times conduct themselves with honesty, integrity, and adherence to the legal and moral standards of the profession. These requirements are not only for entry into the legal profession but are continuing obligations to maintain eligibility to practice law.

  3. Accommodation Party Liability: A lawyer acting as an accommodation party in issuing checks is deemed to be as equally responsible as the principal debtor. Such arrangement does not diminish the lawyer’s responsibility for ensuring sufficient funds in the account on which checks are drawn.

  4. Administrative Liability Independent of Criminal Proceedings: A lawyer can be held administratively liable without a prior criminal conviction. The administrative case can proceed independently based on the conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

  5. Penalty Proportionate to Misconduct: In determining the appropriate penalty, the nature and consequences of the lawyer’s acts, the amount involved, the time elapsed regarding the misconduct, and the lawyer’s adherence to required legal procedures and directives during investigative and disciplinary proceedings are considered.