Alipio v. Era
This is a civil case in the form of a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer, Atty. Edgardo O. Era (respondent), involving the issuance of bouncing checks. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The Supreme Court adopted the IBP's recommendation, holding that the checks were not issued for value or to apply for an account due to the belated discovery of a Notice of Lis Pendens affecting the property subject of the sale. As such, the respondent could not be held liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Thus, the complaint against Atty. Era was dismissed, and the case was declared closed and terminated.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12470. April 1, 2019.]
JOSE EDRALIN G. ALIPIO, complainant, vs.ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 1, 2019 which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12470 [Formerly CBD Case No. 15-4748] — Jose Edralin G. Alipio, complainant, vs. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, respondent.
The Notice of Resolution dated May 19, 2018 of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in CBD Case No. 15-4748 is NOTED. Considering that the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors is duly supported by the evidence on record and by applicable laws, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS its recommendation to dismiss the Complaint for lack of merit.
Although it is undisputed that the subject checks had been dishonored by the drawee bank upon presentment for payment, it appears that the sale transaction for which said checks were issued by respondent as part of the purchase price did not push through, given the belated discovery of a Notice of Lis Pendens affecting the property subject of the sale. As such, it could not be said that said checks had been issued to apply for account or for value, 1 and the dishonor of the same could neither be considered to be in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 nor a ground for any disciplinary sanction against respondent.
ACCORDINGLY, the Complaint against Atty. Edgardo O. Era is DISMISSED.
There being no petition for review filed with the Court per the records of the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Court further resolves to declare this case CLOSED and TERMINATED.
SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "To be liable for violation of B.P. [Blg.] 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment." See Dela Cruz v. People, 792 Phil. 214, 231 (2016).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU