ENRIQUEZ vs.

DE VERA

FACTS:

A complaint for disbarment or suspension was filed by Teresita B. Enriquez (complainant) against
Atty. Trina De Vera (respondent) for serious misconduct. Enriquez if a business woman involved in
building cell site towers. On April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed P500,000.00 from her. Thereafter, the
Atty. De Vera issued IBank Check No 310571 post-dated July 31, 2006 for P500,000.00. On June 2006,
Atty De Vera obtained another loan from Enriquez amounting to P100,000.00. Atty. De Vera issued check
no. 317689 post-dated July 14, 2006. Upon maturity, Enriquez presented the checks for payment.
However, it “bounced” for being drawn against insufficient funds. On the second time, Enriquez
attempted to encash the check, however, it were dishonored because the account was closed.

The IBP Commissioner found Atty. De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and
recommended her suspension for 1 year. In issuing the worthless checks , Atty. De Vera did not only
violate the law, but also broke her oath as a lawyer and transgressed the Canons in the CPR. Particularly,
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR.

ISSUE:

WON Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for
the issuance and dishonor of worthless checks in violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

HELD:

YES, Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable.

Misconduct involves “wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment”, it is serious or gross
when it is flagrant. Atty. De Vera violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 because of
issuing the worthless checks. She even admitted issuing the checks to Teresita, while denying its
existence and claiming that the checks were mere “show checks”. As a lawyer, Atty. De Vera is presumed
to know the consequence of her acts. Thus, a clear violation of the said rules.