VICTORIA C. HEENAN vs. ATTY.

ERLINA ESPEJO
AC no. 10050; December 3, 2013
Heenan loaned Atty. Espejo P250,000.
Espejo gave Heenan a check for P275,000 dated February 2, 2009 (which covers loan and interest) as security
Espejo asked Heenan to delay depositing the check on the day the loan was due because she was yet to get the
bank loan with which shes going to fund the check account.
Espejo sent Heenan a check on July 2009 to pay interests on the loan which has now accumulated to P50,000. The
check bounced.
Without telling Espejo, Heenan tried depositing the 1st check. It too bounced however.
Incensed, Heenan sends Espejo a demand letter on August 3, 2009.
Heenan files criminal charges (BP 22 and Estafa Art. 315) against Espejo on August 18, 2009
At the preliminary investigation, Espejo promised to pay. She again issued a check for P275,000 (due on December
8, 2009) on November 2009 which, again, bounced.
Heenan files an administrative complaint against Espejo in the Commission on Bar Discipline
Espejo does not appear in any of the hearings or file a position paper.
On July 15, 2010, the CBD recommends a five-year suspension for Espejo, which upon review was lowered by the
Board of Governors to 2 years.
HOLDING:
The SC sustains findings of the IBP. Espejos issuance of worthless checs and her blatant refusal to heed the
directives of the Quezon City Prosecutors Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1, Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule 7.03;
and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
RATIONALE:
Espejo did not deny obtaining a loan from Heenan or traverse allegations that she issued unfunded checks to pay her
obligation. It has already been settled that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless
checks constitutes gross misconduct for which a lawyer may be sanctioned.
The prompt payment of financial obligations is one of the duties of a lawyer.
The fact that Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless checks in her private capacity and not as an attorney
of Heenan is of no moment. As we have held in several cases, a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice
and dishonesty in his profession but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity.
While the court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for misconduct committed in his non-professional or private
capacity, the court may be justified in suspending him or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside
of the lawyers professional dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally unfit and unworthy of the
privilege which his licenses and the law confer.