[A.C. NO. 5700 - January 30, 2006] PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AN !AMIN! CO"PO"ATION, r#$r#%#n&#' (y A&&y. Car)*% ".

+au&,%&a, Jr., Complainant, v. ATT-. ANTE A. CA"AN AN!, Respondent. ECISION SAN O.AL-!UTIE""E/, J.0 Before us is a verified complaint for disbarment filed by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR against Atty. !ante A. Carandang. "he complaint alleges that Atty. Carandang, respondent, is the president of Bingo Royale, #ncorporated (Bingo Royale , a private corporation organi$ed under the la%s of the Philippines. On &ebruary ', ())), PAGCOR and Bingo Royale e*ecuted a +Grant of Authority to Operate Bingo Games.+ Article , of this document mandates Bingo Royale to remit '-. of its gross sales to PAGCOR. "his '-. is divided into (/. to PAGCOR and /. franchise ta* to the Bureau of #nternal Revenue. #n the course of its operations, Bingo Royale incurred arrears amounting to P0,-01,233.(1 as of 4ovember (/, '--(. #nstead of demanding the payment therefor, PAGCOR allo%ed Bingo Royale and respondent Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly installment of P3--,---.-from 5uly '--( to 5une '--3. Bingo Royale then issued to PAGCOR t%enty four ('1 Ban6 of Commerce chec6s in the sum ofP7,'--,---.-- signed by respondent. 8o%ever, %hen the chec6s %ere deposited after the end of each month at the 9and Ban6, :.4. Avenue Branch, ;anila, they %ere all dishonored by reason of Bingo Royale<s +Closed Account.+ !espite PAGCOR<s demand letters dated 4ovember (' and !ecember (', '--(, and &ebruary (', '--', respondent failed to pay the amounts of the chec6s. "hus, PAGCOR filed %ith the Office of the City Prosecutor of ;anila criminal complaints for violations of Batas Pambansa (B.P. Blg. '' against respondent.

PAGCOR contends that in issuing those bouncing chec6s, respondent is liable for serious misconduct, violation of the Attorney<s Oath and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility= and prays that his name be stric6en from the Roll of Attorneys. #n his +Opposition+ to the complaint, respondent averred that he is not liable for issuing bouncing chec6s because they %ere dra%n by Bingo Royale. 8is act of doing so +is not related to the office of a la%yer.+ Respondent e*plained that since the start of its operations, Bingo Royale has been e*periencing financial difficulties due to meager sales. 8ence, it incurred arrearages in paying PAGCOR<s shares and failed to pay the amounts of the chec6s. On 4ovember '-, '--(, PAGCOR closed the operations of Bingo Royale. "his prompted the latter to file %ith the Regional "rial Court, Branch /), ;a6ati City, a complaint for damages against PAGCOR, doc6eted as Civil Case 4o. -(>(07(. ?ubse@uently, Bingo Royale became ban6rupt. Respondent no% maintains that the dishonor of the chec6s %as caused by circumstances beyond his control and pleads that our po%er to disbar him must be e*ercised %ith great caution. On &ebruary '1, '--3, %e resolved to refer this case to the #ntegrated Bar of the Philippines (#BP for investigation, report and recommendation. ( #n his Report and Recommendation, Atty. !oroteo B. Aguila, the #nvestigating #BP Commissioner, made the follo%ing findings and observationsA Bhether to issue or not chec6s in favor of a payee is a voluntary act. #t is clearly a choice for an individual (especially one learned in the la% , %hether in a personal capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so after assessing and %eighing the conse@uences and ris6s for doing so. As President of BR#, he cannot be said to be una%are of the probability that BR#, the company he runs, could not raise funds, totally or partially, to cover the chec6s as they fell due. "he desire to continue the operations of his company does not e*cuse respondent<s act of violating the la% by issuing %orthless chec6s. ;oreover, inability to pay is not a ground, under the Civil Code, to suspend nor e*tinguish an obligation. ?pecifically, respondent contends that because of business reverses or inability to generate funds, BR# should be e*cused from ma6ing good the payment of the chec6s. #f this theory is sustained, debtors %ill merely state that they no longer have the capacity to pay and,

conse@uently, not obliged to pay on time, nor fully or partially, their debt to creditors. ?urely, undersigned cannot agree %ith this contention. As correctly pointed out by complainant, violation of B.P. Blg. '' is an offense that involves public interest. #n the leading case of People v. "aCDada, the 8onorable ?upreme Court e*plained the nature of the offense, thus< *** "he gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. '' is the act of ma6ing and issuing a %orthless chec6 or a chec6 that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment ***. "he thrust of the la% is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions the ma6ing of %orthless chec6s and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by la%. "he la% punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. *** "he effects of the issuance of a %orthless chec6 transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interest of the community at large. "he mischief it creates is not only a %rong to the payee or holder, but also an inEury to the public. "he harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very %ell pollute the channels of trade and commerce, inEure the ban6ing system and eventually hurt the %elfare of society and the public interest. * * * (Emphasis supplied
crala%library

"he Code of Professional Responsibility re@uires a la%yer to obey the la%s of the land and promote respect for la% and the legal processes. #t also prohibits a la%yer from engaging in unla%ful conduct (Canon ( F Rule (.-( . By issuing the bouncing chec6s in blatant violation of B.P. Blg. '', respondent clearly %as irresponsible and displayed lac6 of concern for the rights of others nor for the canons of professional responsibility (Castillo v. "aguines, '/1 ?CRA //1 . Atty. Carandang deserves to be suspended from the practice of la% for a period of one year. Consistent %ith the ruling in this Castillo case, suspension for one year is the deserved minimum penalty for the outrageous conduct of a la%yer %ho has no concern for the property rights of others nor for the canons of professional responsibility. ;oreover, conviction for the offense of violation of B.P. Blg. '' is not even essential for disbarment (!e 5esus v. Collado, '(0 ?CRA 0() .

Commissioner Aguila then recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of la% for one (( year. On ?eptember '7, '--3, the #BP Board of Governors passed Resolution 4o. G,#>'--3>(77 adopting and approving Commissioner Aguila<s Report and Recommendation %ith modification in the sense that the recommended penalty is reduced to suspension of si* (0 months, thusA RH?O9,H! "O A!OP" and APPRO,H, as it is hereby A!OP"H! and APPRO,H!, the Report and Recommendation of the #nvestigating Commissioner of the above>entitled case, herein made part of the ResolutionI!ecision as Anne* +A+ and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable la%s and rules, %ith modification, and considering that the Code of Professional Responsibility re@uires a la%yer to obey the la%s of the land and promote respect of la% and the legal processes, and also prohibits a la%yer from engaging in unla%ful conduct, Atty. !ante A. Carandang is hereby ?:?PH4!H! from the practice of la% for si* (0 months.' ?ection (, B. P. Blg. '' providesA Bhere the chec6 is dra%n by a corporation, company or entity, &1# $#r%*n *r $#r%*n% 21* a3&ua))y %,4n#' &1# 31#35 *n (#1a)6 *6 %u31 'ra2#r %1a)) (# ),a()# un'#r &1,% A3&. (Emphasis supplied
crala%library

Clearly, even if the chec6 %as dra%n by Bingo Royale, still respondent is liable. #n People v. Tuanda,3 %e e*plained the nature of violation of B.P. Blg. '' as follo%sA "he gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. '' is the act of ma6ing and issuing a %orthless chec6 or a chec6 that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment ***. "he thrust of the la% is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the ma6ing of %orthless chec6s and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the la%. "he la% punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. "he effects of the issuance of a %orthless chec6 transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. "he mischief it creates is not only a %rong to the payee or holder, but also an inEury to the public. "he harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a

thousand fold, can very %ell pollute the channels of trade and commerce, inEure the ban6ing system and eventually hurt the %elfare of society and the public interest. As a la%yer, respondent is deemed to 6no% the la%, especially B. P. Blg. ''. By issuing chec6s in violation of the provisions of this la%, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. #n Camus v. Civil Service Board of Appeals ,1 %e defined misconduct as follo%sA ;isconduct has been defined as +%rong or improper conduct=+ and +gross+ has been held to mean +flagrant= shameful+ (Bebster . "his Court once held that the %ord misconduct implies a %rongful intention and not a mere error of Eudgment. #n Lizaso v. Amante,/ %e held that a la%yer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection %ith his profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity, thusA "he nature of the office, the trust relation %hich e*ists bet%een attorney and client, as %ell as bet%een court and attorney, and the statutory rule prescribing the @ualifications of attorney, uniformly re@uire that an attorney shall be a person of good moral character. *** ?o it is held that an a&&*rn#y 2,)) (# r#7*8#' n*& *n)y 6*r 7a)$ra3&,3# an' ',%1*n#%&y ,n 1,% $r*6#%%,*n, (u& a)%* 6*r 4r*%% 7,%3*n'u3& n*& 3*nn#3&#' 2,&1 1,% $r*6#%%,*na) 'u&,#%, 21,31 %1*2% 1,7 &* (# un6,& 6*r &1# *66,3# an' un2*r&1y *6 &1# $r,n3,$)#% 21,31 1,% ),3#n%# an' &1# )a2 3*n6#r u$*n 1,7. (Underscoring supplied
crala%library

Respondent li6e%ise violated the Attorney<s Oath that he %ill, among others, obey the la%s= and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically the follo%ing provisionsA Cannon ( > A la%yer shall uphold the Constitution, *(#y &1# )a2% *6 &1# )an' an' $r*7*&# r#%$#3& 6*r &1# )a2 an' )#4a) $r*3#%%#% . Rule (.-( > A la%yer shall not engage in unla%ful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Canon 7 > A la%yer shall a& a)) &,7#% u$1*)' &1# ,n&#4r,&y an' ',4n,&y *6 &1# )#4a) $r*6#%%,*nand support the activities of the #ntegrated Bar. Rule 7.-3 > A la%yer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice la%, nor shall he, %hether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

9HE"E:O"E, Atty. !ante A. Carandang is declared !UILT- of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorney<s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. As recommended by the #BP Board of Governors, he is SUSPEN E from the practice of la% for si* (0 months effective from notice. 9et a copy of this !ecision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the #ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, and all courts in the land for their information and guidance. "he Office of the Bar Confidant is I"ECTE to spread a copy of this !ecision on the personal record of Atty. Carandang. SO O" E"E .