David v. Batalla

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12828. November 15, 2021.]

ALFREDO Q. DAVID, complainant, vs. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. BATALLA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2021which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 12828(Alfredo Q. David v. Atty. Virgilio R. Batalla). — This is a disbarment complaint 1 filed by Alfredo Q. David (David) against respondent Atty. Virgilio R. Batalla (Atty. Batalla) for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). 2 HTcADC

The Antecedents:

David alleged in his March 26, 2014 complaint-affidavit 3 that sometime during the first week of January 2008, Atty. Batalla, together with a certain Rudy Quilon (Quilon), came to see him in his residence for the purpose of "rediscounting" 4 a check. 5

Atty. Batalla presented to him Metrobank check no. 4450104660 6 payable to "Cash" under the account of SCR Architectural Products amounting to P300,000.00. According to Atty. Batalla, the check was issued to him by Quilon in payment of his obligation. Quilon, on the other hand, explained to David that he is the President of SCR Architectural Products and is authorized to issue the check as payment. Atty. Batalla intimated that he badly needed the cash and could not wait until the due date and guaranteed to David that the check will be funded on the due date. 7

Convinced by the representations of Atty. Batalla, David accepted the check and rediscounted it for P270,000.00. 8

Before the due date of the check, Atty. Batalla and Quilon came to see David and requested him not to deposit Metrobank check no. 4450104660 since it was not yet funded. David agreed. Several pleas for postponements made by Atty. Batalla and Quilon followed. Months passed and yet they still failed to fund the face value of the check as promised. 9

When Atty. Batalla and Quilon did not communicate with him anymore, David encashed the check but it was dishonored for reason of "ACCOUNTCLOSED." David then sent via registered mail a hand-written demand letter and a notice of dishonor to Quilon and Atty. Batalla. 10 Despite receipt, they did not heed David's demand for payment. 11

David averred that it was not the first time Atty. Batalla reneged on his promise to pay the face value of the check he requested for rediscounting. 12 Sometime in June 2007, Atty. Batalla approached him for rediscounting of Metrobank check no. 4450104454 13 amounting to P200,000.00. However, Atty. Batalla also failed to pay the check's face amount. Hence, this complaint. 14

Report and Recommendation of

The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) directed Atty. Batalla to file his duly verified answer. 15 A notice of mandatory conference was also sent to him. 16 However, Atty. Batalla did not his answer or attend the mandatory conference. 18 Only David submitted his position paper 19 charging Atty. Batalla with violation of Canon 1-Rule 1.01 20 and Canon 7-Rule 7.03 21 of the CPR when he employed deceit in presenting worthless checks for rediscounting and failed to make payments. 22

In a Report and Recommendation 23 dated December 17, 2014, the Investigating Commissioner noted Atty. Batalla's repeated defiance of the IBP-CBD orders amounting to an act of contempt to the lawful orders of the court. The IBP-CBD thus proceeded with the resolution of the complaint despite the absence of Atty. Batalla maintaining that a disbarment proceeding is sui generis, neither purely civil nor purely criminal but rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. 24

The Investigating Commissioner noted that the following pieces of evidence presented by the complainant: 1) complaint-affidavit; 25 2) Metrobank Checks; 26 3) hand-written demand letter; 27 and 4) registry receipt and return card, 28 successfully proved by substantial evidence the charges against Atty. Batalla. 29

In particular, Atty. Batalla did not act with integrity when he intentionally engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that seriously reflected on his fitness to practice law and was considered as gross misconduct. 30

Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that Atty. Batalla be suspended for one year from the practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. The Investigating Commissioner also recommended for Atty. Batalla to pay within 30 days the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest from the date of demand or July 14, 2008. 31

In Resolution No. XXI-2015-374 32 dated June 5, 2015, the IBP-Board of Governors (BOG) resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The Board sustained the findings that Atty. Batalla was guilty of employing deceit and fraud in his transaction with David and failed to abide with the orders of the IBP. The BOG modified the penalty of suspension from practice of law from one year to two years without prejudice to complainant's institution of proper action in Court with respect to the amount of P500,000.00. 33 aScITE

Atty. Batalla filed a motion for reconsideration 34 of the June 5, 2015 Resolution of the IBP BOG. He asserted that he was not properly notified of the ongoing administrative complaint against him. Atty. Batalla averred that David willfully and maliciously used his incomplete provincial address that he rarely visits. Atty. Batalla averred that David was well aware of his city address since they meet each other in the proceedings of the estafa case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110 in Pasay City. 35 Atty. Batalla further alleged that he did not employ deceit, fraud and misrepresentation. Atty. Batalla also claimed that he only acted as a guarantor to the transaction between David and Quillon and that he was willing to pay the loan if the latter ultimately fails to do so. 36

As to the alleged previous unpaid transaction, logic defies the assertion of David that he did not pay the P200,000.00 loan. If it were the case, David would have not entertained his request for rediscounting or release the rediscounted amount of P270,000.00 for the subsequent transaction. 37

In a Resolution 38 dated September 28, 2017, the IBP-BOG partially granted Atty. Batalla's motion for reconsideration by reducing the recommended penalty of suspension from practice of law to one year and ordering him to pay David the amount of P500,000.00 with legal interest as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner. 39

Our Ruling

We adopt the factual findings and approve with modification the recommendation of the IBP.

At the outset, the Court rejects Atty. Batalla's averment that he was deprived of due process when he was not notified of the on-going administrative case. 40

"The right to be heard is the most basic principle of due process. It is a settled rule that there is no denial of due process when a party has been given an opportunity to be heard and to present his case. There is only denial of clue process when there is total absence or lack of opportunity to be heard or to have one's day in court." 41

Here, Atty. Batalla admitted that notices of the proceedings were sent to his provincial address and were received by his sister who forwarded the same to him. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Atty. Batalla was duly notified of the present administrative proceedings.

Moreover, this Court takes into account the manifestation of David that Atty. Batalla's provincial address, was the same address indicated in the proceedings before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City and in the Regional Trial Court of Pasay wherein they were parties to an estafa case. Atty. Batalla timely received the notices therein and did not move to correct the indicated address. 42 Thus, the foregoing showed that Atty. Batalla deliberately and intentionally ignored the lawful orders of the IBP. Be as it may, Atty. Batalla's subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration with the IBP rendered moot his allegation of lack of due process.

Delving now into the crux of the case, it has long been settled that a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity. 43

"Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the [CPR]. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor — or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court." 44

Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court is clear on the matter, to wit:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience x x x.

Here, the undisputed facts clearly show that Atty. Batalla presented a worthless check purportedly amounting to P300,000.00 and P200,000.00 for rediscounting and failed to pay their face amount when they became due. While Atty. Batalla avers that it was Quilon who needed the money and he merely acted as a guarantor for the P300,000.00, the fact that Atty. Batalla was instrumental in its rediscounting by David, clearly shows Atty. Batalla's culpability for violation of the CPR as a lawyer. The same is true with the previous transaction involving P200,000.00 whereby Atty. Batalla likewise instrumental in the check's rediscounting but did not make good on his promise to pay the face amount when it became due.

When Atty. Batalla repeatedly evaded payment of a just and demandable debt, whether or not he was the actual debtor or merely a guarantor showed his deceitful character and Jack of integrity. Moreover, this Court is convinced that Atty. Batalla's representation that the check would be funded on time, coupled with his being as a lawyer, were factors that persuaded and prompted David to part with his money. HEITAD

It should be remembered that one of the qualifications required of a candidate for admission to the bar is the possession of good moral character, and, when one who has already been admitted to the bar clearly shows, by a series of acts, that he does not follow such moral principles as should govern the conduct of an upright person, and that, in his dealings with his clients and with the courts, he disregards the rules of professional ethics required to be observed by every attorney, it is the duty of the court, as guardian of the interests of society, as well as of the preservation of the ideal standard of professional conduct, to make use of its powers to deprive him of his professional attributes which he so unworthily abused. 45

Atty. Batalla's actuations, taken collectively, demonstrate his lack of good moral character and defiance of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR that provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct," and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR that provides "[a] lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."

In Grande v. de Silva, 46 the Court found the respondent therein guilty of deceit, gross misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath for which she was suspended from the practice of law. According to the Court, the breach of trust committed by the respondent lawyer in issuing a bouncing check and evading a debt validly incurred amounted to deceit and constituted a violation of her oath for which she should be accordingly penalized, thus:

The nature of the office of an attorney requires that a lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Since this qualification is a condition precedent to a license to enter upon the practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally essential during the continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. Gross misconduct which puts the lawyer's moral character in serious doubt may render her unfit to continue in the practice of law.

The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment, because it is important that members of the legal brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of morality. Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred, Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the bar, for a lawyer's professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion. 47 [Emphasis ours; citations omitted]

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to overturn the finding of the IBP in so far as the respondent's administrative liability for Gross Misconduct in his deceitful non-payment of debts.

However, on the aspect of the penalty to be imposed, this Court holds that respondent should be meted the penalty of one year suspension from practice in line with prevailing jurisprudence. 48

Moreover, considering the estafa case instituted by David against Atty. Batalla involving the amount of P500,000.00, the same should not be adjudged in this administrative case. 49 Be it noted that a proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. The proceedings are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them. 50

ACCORDINGLY, Atty. Virgilio Batalla is found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and violating Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of the Lawyer's Oath. He is thus SUSPENDED for one year from the practice of law effective immediately upon receipt of notice. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. He is DIRECTED to immediately file a manifestation to the Court that his suspension has started, copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance as counsel.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into Atty. Virgilio Batalla's records. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the (a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines for dissemination thereof to all its Chapters; and (b) the Office of the Court of Administrator for circulation to all courts for information and guidance.

SO ORDERED." (S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, on official leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)

By Authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-10; formerly docketed as CBD Case No. 14-4190.

2.Id. at 47.

3.Id.

4. Rediscounting as defined by Cambridge Dictionary means: '' the process or buying a debt instrument (loan) for a lower price before the date it has to be paid back, for a second or third time." Retrieved from·https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rediscount on September 15, 2021.

5.Rollo, p. 2.

6.Id. unpaginated.

7.Id. at 2.

8.Id. at 2-3.

9.Id. at 3.

10.Id. at 7-8; sent to the forwarding address of Quillon.

11.Id. at 3.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 9-10; payable to "Virgilio Batalla."

14.Id. at 3-4.

15.Id. at 11.

16.Id. at 18.

17.Id. at 19.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 21-30.

20. Canon I — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

21. Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall be, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

22.Rollo, pp. 23-24.

23.Id. at 45-48.

24.Id. at 47-48.

25.Id. at 2-5.

26.Id. unpaginated; 9.

27.Id. at 7.

28.Id. at 8.

29.Id. at 48.

30.Id.

31.Id.

32.Id. at 76-77.

33.Id. at 76-77.

34.Id. 49-52.

35.Id. at 50-51.

36.Id. at 51-52.

37.Id. at 51.

38.Id. at 74-75.

39.Id. at 73-75.

40.Id. at 50-51.

41.Ang v. Belaro, Jr., A.C. No. 12408, December 11, 2019.

42.Rollo, pp. 55-56; 60-61.

43.See Buenaventura v. Gille, A.C. No. 7446, December 9, 2020.

44.See Barrios v. Martinez, 485 Phil. 1-18 (2004), citing; Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, 349 Phil. 7-16 (1998).

45.Id.

46. 455 Phil. 1 (2003).

47.Id. at 6-7. Citations omitted.

48.Dalumay v. Agustin, A.C. No. 12836, March 17, 2021; Villa v. Defensor-Velez, A.C. No. 12202, December 5, 2019; Executive Suites Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Amor, A.C. No. 11582, July 10, 2019.

49. See Dalumay v. Agustin, supra.

50.Heirs of Borres v. Abela, 554 Phil. 502-523 (2007).