Você está na página 1de 1

Priscilla Orbe vs Atty.

Adaza
Legal Ethics 428 SCRA 567 Gross Misconduct What Conduct Means
In November 1996, Attorney Adaza went to Priscilla Orbe to borrow P60k. Orbe loaned Adaza the said amount.
As security, Adaza issued Orbe two checks to cover the loan plus interest. The checks however bounced (the
second check was even post dated by Adaza to bear the date January 24, 1996- many months before November
1996 when the loan was made). Subsequently, because of Adazas failure to pay despite notices and demand
from Orbe, the latter filed a complaint for grave misconduct against Adaza. Orbe alleged that Adaza is unfit to be
a member of the bar. Eventually, the case was referred to the respective Integrated Bar of Philippines chapter.
Despite notices, Adaza failed to appear in any of the proceedings. The IBP chapter then recommended Adazas
suspension for one year.
ISSUE: Whether or not Adaza should be suspended.
HELD: Yes. Adazas issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just
obligation for nearly eight years (from SCs date of decision [2004]) is appalling. The Supreme Court also
elucidated on the following:
A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or
misconduct in office. The word conduct used in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with
the performance of the lawyers professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although not connected
with his professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which
his license and the law confer upon him. The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court
are not limitative and are broad enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity. Such misdeed puts his moral fiber, as well as his fitness to continue in the
advocacy of law, in serious doubt.