12/15/2014

CovsBernardino:3919:January28,1998:J.Bellosillo:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[AC.No.3919.January28,1998]

SOCORRO T. CO, complainant, vs. ATTY. GODOFREDO N. BERNARDINO,

respondent.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO,J.:

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by complainant Socorro T. Co, a

businesswoman,againstAtty.GodofredoN.Bernardinocharginghimwithunprofessionaland
unethicalconductindicatingmoraldeficiencyandunfitnesstostayintheprofessionoflaw.
SocorroT.CoallegedthatinOctober1989,asshewasfollowingupthedocumentsforher
shipment at the Bureau of Customs, she was approached by respondent, Atty. Godofredo N.
Bernardino,introducinghimselfassomeoneholdingvariouspositionsintheBureauofCustoms
suchasExecutiveAssistantattheNAIA,HearingOfficerattheLawDivision,andOICofthe
SecurityWarehouse.Respondentofferedtohelpcomplainantandpromisedtogivehersome
businessattheBureau.Innotime,theybecamefriendsandamonthafter,orinNovemberof
the same year, respondent succeeded in borrowing from complainant P120,000.00 with the
promise to pay the amount in full the following month, broadly hinting that he could use his
influence at the Bureau of Customs to assist her. To ensure payment of his obligation,
respondentissuedtocomplainantseveralpostdatedBostonBankchecks:No.092601dated1
December 1989 for P21,950.00, No. 092602 dated 4 December 1989 for P6,750.00, No.
092615 dated 15 January 1990 for P65,000.00 and No. 092622 dated 15 January 1990 for
P10,000.00 (Exhs. "A3," "B," "C," "D," respectively). Respondent also issued a postdated
UrbanDevelopmentBankcheckNo.051946dated9January1990forP5,500.00(Exh."E").
However, the checks covering the total amount of P109,200.00 were dishonored for
insufficiencyoffundsandclosureofaccount.
Pressedtomakegoodhisobligation,respondenttoldcomplainantthathewouldbeableto
payherifshewouldlendhimanadditionalamountofP75,000.00tobepaidamonthafterto
be secured by a chattel mortgage on his Datsun car.[1] As complainant agreed respondent
handedherthree(3)copiesofadeedofchattelmortgagewhichhehimselfdraftedandsix(6)
copiesofthedeedofsaleofhiscarwiththeassurancethathewouldturnoveritsregistration
certificateandofficialreceipt.Theagreementwasnotconsummatedasrespondentlatersold
thesamecartoanother.
Despite several chances given him to settle his obligation respondent chose to evade
complainant altogether so that she was constrained to write him a final demand letter
dated22September1992[2]precedingthefilingofseveralcriminalcomplaintsagainsthimfor
violationofBPBlg.22.[3]Complainantalsofileda lettercomplaintdated5October1992with
theOfficeoftheOmbudsman.[4]
ItmaybeworthmentioningthatacertainEmelindaOrtizalsofiledseveralcriminalandcivil
cases against respondent similarly involving money transactions.[5] Ms. Ortiz claimed that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htm

1/4

12/15/2014

CovsBernardino:3919:January28,1998:J.Bellosillo:FirstDivision

respondenthadvolunteeredtoselltohera20footercontainervanfilledwithimportedcotton
fabricshirtingrawmaterialsfromtheBureauofCustomswarehouseforP600,000.00intimefor
theholidays.However,despitehersuccessivepaymentstorespondenttotallingP410,000.00,
the latter failed to deliver the goods as promised. Worse, respondent's personal check for
P410,000.00 representing reimbursement of the amount he received from Ms. Ortiz was
returneddishonoredforinsufficiencyoffunds.
Bywayofdefense,respondentaverredthathegavethecheckstocomplainantCobyway
ofrediscountingandthatthesewerefullypaidwhenhedeliveredfivecellularphonestoher.
He brushed aside the allegations of complainant and Ms. Ortiz as illmotivated, vague,
confusing,misleadingandfullofbiasesandprejudices.Althoughheismarriedheinsinuateda
special relationship with the two (2) women which caused him to be careless in his dealings
withthem.
On 3 March 1993 the Court referred this administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippinesforinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.
On17May1997theIBPissuedaresolutionrecommendingthesuspensionofrespondent
fromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)monthsbasedonthefollowingfindings
1.Noreceipthasbeenproducedbyrespondentshowingthatthefacevalueofthesubject
checkshasbeenpaidorthattheallegedfive(5)unitsofcellularphoneshavebeendeliveredto
thecomplainant
2.TheDecisioninthecriminalcasesthatwerefiledvisavisthesubjectbouncingchecksand
whereinhewasacquittedclearlyshowsthathisacquittalwasnotduetopaymentofthe
obligationbutratherthat'privatecomplainantknewatthetimetheaccusedissuedthechecks
thatthelatterdidnothavesufficientfundsinthebanktocoverthesame.NoviolationofBP
Blg.22iscommittedwherecomplainantwastoldbythedrawerthathedoesnothavesufficient
fundsinthebankand
3.Respondentsubsequentlypaidthecomplainantasshownbyareceiptdated26August
1995xxxandthereleaseofrealestatemortgagexxxxIfitistruethathehadalreadypaid
hisobligationwithfive(5)cellularphones,whypayagain?
Thegeneralruleisthatalawyermaynotbesuspendedordisbarred,andthecourtmaynot
ordinarilyassumejurisdictiontodisciplinehimformisconductinhisnonprofessionalorprivate
capacity(InRePelaez,44Phil.5569[1923]).Where,however,themisconductoutsideofthe
lawyer'sprofessionaldealingsissogrossacharacterastoshowhimmorallyunfitfortheoffice
andunworthyoftheprivilegewhichhislicensesandthelawconferonhim,thecourtmaybe
justifiedinsuspendingorremovinghimfromtheofficeofattorney(InReSotto,38Phil.569
[1923]).
Theevidenceonrecordclearlyshowsrespondent'spropensitytoissuebadchecks.Thisgross
misconductonhispart,thoughnotrelatedtohisprofessionaldutiesasamemberofthebar,
putshismoralcharacterinseriousdoubt.TheCommission,however,doesnotfindhima
hopelesscaseinthelightofthefactthatheeventuallypaidhisobligationtothecomplainant,
albeitverymuchdelayed.[6]
While it is true that there was no attorneyclient relationship between complainant and
respondentasthetransactionbetweenthemdidnotrequiretheprofessionallegalservicesof
respondent, nevertheless respondent's abject conduct merits condemnation from this Court.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htm

2/4

12/15/2014

CovsBernardino:3919:January28,1998:J.Bellosillo:FirstDivision

Thus we held in Lizaso v. Amante[7] where Atty. Amante enticed complainant to invest in the
casino business with the proposition that her investment would yield her an interest of 10%
profit daily, and Atty. Amante not only failed to deliver the promised return on the
investmentbutalsotheprincipalthereof(P5,000.00)despitecomplainant'srepeateddemands
Asearlyas1923,however,theCourtlaiddowninInReVicentePelaez[44Phil.567(1923)]
theprinciplethatitcanexerciseitspowertodisciplinelawyersforcauseswhichdonotinvolve
therelationshipofanattorneyandclientxxxxIndiscipliningtherespondent,Mr.Justice
Malcolmsaid:xxxxAsageneralrule,acourtwillnotassumejurisdictiontodisciplineoneof
itsofficersformisconductallegedtohavebeencommittedinhisprivatecapacity.Butthisisa
generalrulewithmanyexceptionsxxxxThenatureoftheoffice,thetrustrelationwhich
existsbetweenattorneyandclient,aswellasbetweencourtandattorney,andthestatutory
rulesprescribingthequalificationsofattorneys,uniformlyrequirethatanattorneyshallbea
personofgoodmoralcharacter.Ifthatqualificationisaconditionprecedenttoalicenseor
privilegetoenteruponthepracticeofthelaw,itwouldseemtobeequallyessentialduringthe
continuanceofthepracticeandtheexerciseoftheprivilege.Soitisheldthatanattorneywill
beremovednotonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyinhisprofession,butalsoforgross
misconductnotconnectedwithhisprofessionalduties,whichshowshimtobeunfitforthe
officeandunworthyoftheprivilegeswhichhislicenseandthelawconferuponhimxxxx[8]
Tenyearslater,inPiattv.Abordo[9]wheretheerringlawyerwassuspendedforoneyear
fromthepracticeoflawforattemptingtoengageinanopiumdeal,JusticeMalcolmreiterated
thatanattorneymayberemovednotonlyformalpracticeanddishonestyinhisprofession,but
alsoforgrossmisconductnotrelatedtohisprofessionaldutieswhichshowhimtobeanunfit
andunworthylawyer."Thecourtsarenotcuratorsofthemoralsofthebar.Atthesametime
the profession is not compelled to harbor all persons whatever their character, who are
fortunate enough to keep out of prison. As good character is an essential qualification for
admissionofanattorneytopractice,whentheattorney'scharacterisbadinsuchrespectsas
toshowthatheisunsafeandunfittobeentrustedwiththepowersofanattorney,thecourts
retain the power to discipline him x x x x Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most
sacredlyboundtoupholdthelawxxxandtothatdoctrinewegiveourunqualifiedsupport."[10]
Finally,referenceismadetoRule1.01,Chapter1,entitledTheLawyerandSocietyofthe
CodeofProfessionalResponsibilitywhichrequiresthat"alawyershallnotengageinunlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." "Conduct," as used in this Rule, is not limited to
conductexhibitedinconnectionwiththeperformanceofprofessionalduties.
In the case at bar, it is glaringly clear that the procurement of personal loans through
insinuationsofhispowerasaninfluencepeddlerintheBureauofCustoms,theissuanceofa
series of bad checks and the taking undue advantage of his position in the aforesaid
governmentofficeconstituteconductingrossviolationofRule1.01oftheCodeofProfessional
Responsibility.
Therecommendedsuspensionofrespondentforsix(6)monthsislessthanwhathejustly
deserves.Hispropinquityforemployingdeceitandmisrepresentationsaswellashiscavalier
attitudetowardsincurringdebtswithouttheleastintentionofrepayingthemisreprehensible.
Thisdisturbingbehaviorcannotbetoleratedmostespeciallyinalawyerwhoisanofficerofthe
court.
WHEREFORE,respondentATTY.GODOFREDON.BERNARDINOisSUSPENDEDFOR
ONE(1)YEARfromthepracticeoflawwithwarningthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaracts
willmeritamoreseverepenalty.LetcopiesofthisDecisionbefurnishedallcourtsintheland,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htm

3/4

12/15/2014

CovsBernardino:3919:January28,1998:J.Bellosillo:FirstDivision

theIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,theOfficeoftheBarConfidantandspreadinrespondent's
personalrecords.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,(Chairman),Vitug,andKapunan,JJ.,concur.
[1]

Exh."F",complainant'sOfferofExhibits,p.32

[2]

Exh."I,"id.,pp.3536.
Crim.CasesNos.9991499918,Exhs."M"to"Q,"id.,pp.6271.
[4]
Exh."W,"id.,pp.7780.
[5]
Annex"J,"IBPRecords,Vol.III,pp.3738.
[6]
ReportandRecommendation,Adm.CaseNo.3919.
[7]
Adm.CaseNo.2019,3June1991,198SCRA1.
[8]
Id.,pp.911.
[9]
58Phil.350(1933).
[10]
Id.,pp.351352.
[3]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/jan1998/ac_3919.htm

4/4