EN BANC
[A.C. No. 11380. July 11, 2017.]
JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ, petitioner,vs. ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJULY 11, 2017,which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11380 (Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz v. Atty. Chichina Faye Lim). — In a Decision 1 dated 16 August 2016, this Court imposed the penalty of two years suspension on respondent based on Sanchez v. Torres2 and Nulada v. Paulma. 3 As in Sanchez, respondent in this case exploited her friendship with complainant in order to borrow substantial amounts of money, some secured by postdated checks, which she later failed to pay. HTcADC
On 20 October 2016, the Clerk of Court En Banc received a Manifestation 4 by respondent that she had consigned the amount of P2.3 million to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Davao, where the criminal cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against her were pending. 5 The amount allegedly covered the face value of all the checks subject of the criminal cases. She said that prior to the consignation, she had already made a verbal request — through the counsel of complainant — for the latter to receive the amount, but her request was refused. 6
In her Motion for Reconsideration, 7 respondent implores this Court to reduce the period of suspension, considering that 1) her consignation of P2.3 million showed her earnest sincerity to pay her debts; 2) this was the first time she was subjected to an administrative complaint; 3) there are only a few practicing lawyers in Kapalong, Davao del Norte; and 4) most of her clients are indigent litigants who have no one else to assist them.
We acknowledge the grounds raised by respondent and accordingly reduce the penalty to a one-year suspension.
In Co v. Bernardino, 8 this Court held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. In Barrientos v. Libiran-Meteoro, 9 this Court deemed a six-month suspension sufficient penalty, because the respondent therein had already paid a portion of her debt. However, in Wong v. Moya II, 10 which was cited in Nulada, this Court imposed a two-year suspension on the lawyer because, aside from issuing worthless checks and failing to pay his debts, he had also seriously breached his client's trust and confidence and shown a wanton disregard of the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). aScITE
While we note respondent's attempt at restitution, we cannot adopt the six-month suspension imposed in Barrientos because of respondent's disregard of IBP orders — her non-filing of an Answer, her absence during the preliminary conference, 11 and the belated filing of her Position Paper.
In reducing the penalty to one year, this Court relies on the representations of respondent that she has been practicing in a locality where there is a dearth of lawyers; that she has been assisting indigent litigants; and that this was her first administrative infraction. Any misrepresentation regarding those matters would result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The period of suspension from the practice of law is reduced to one year." Del Castillo and Jardeleza, JJ., on official leave. (adv15)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 430-435.
2. A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014, 741 SCRA 620.
3. A.C. No. 8172 (Resolution), 12 April 2016 citing Heenan v. Espejo, 722 Phil. 528 (2013), A-1 Financial Services, Inc. v. Valerio, 636 Phil. 627 (2010), Dizon v. De Taza, 736 Phil. 60 (2014), and Wong v. Moya II, 590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008).
4.Rollo, pp. 437-439.
5.Id. at 445-448.
6.Id. at 438.
7.Id. at 466-472.
8. 349 Phil. 16 (1998).
9. 480 Phil. 661 (2004).
10. 590 Phil. 279 (2008).
11. While the Minutes of the Hearing (rollo, p. 35) shows that an Atty. Astrid Molanida appeared on respondent's behalf, the explanation provided for her absence was inconsistent. She said that respondent was indisposed (rollo, p. 36), while the latter claimed that it was because of financial difficulty that she was unable to attend the conference (rollo, p. 208).