Estrella R. Sanchez, Complainant, v. Atty. Nicolas C. Torres, M.D.

, Respondent
A.C. No. 10240, 25 November 2014

Facts: On 08 February 2007, complainant lend PhP 2,200,000.00 to the respondent.

The respondent issued to checks amounting to PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant
and promised to pay the loan within a month with interest. After a month’s time, the
respondent failed to pay the complainant. The respondent told the complainant to
deposit the checks and assured her that the checks will be honored. On 2 May 2008,
complainant to deposit the checks to her account, but the same were returned due to
‘Account Closed.’

Despite repeated demands for the last three years, the complainant has yet to pay his
obligations since the complainant sought legal assistance. Formal demand letters were
sent by the complainant’s lawyer which the respondent received on 14 August 2008 and
17 November 2008, respectively, and the same proved futile as the respondent failed
and refused to pay his obligation. Nonetheless, the respondent, in his letter dated 9 May
2009, promised to pay anew his loan in cash on or before 15 May 2009 as replacement
for the two checks he previously issued. But no payment was made. Hence, the instant
complaint was filed on 28 November 2011 at the IBP-CBD. It ordered the respondent to
file an answer. After giving ample time for the respondent to answer to no avail, the IBP-
CBD issued its report and recommendation dated 15 June 2012, finding the respondent
guilty of willful dishonesty and unethical conduct for failure to pay just debt and for
issuing checks without sufficient funds. The respondent was recommended to be
sanctioned with suspension from practice of law for at least two years. The IBP-Board of
Governors adopted and approved the IBP-CBD’s report and recommendation, and
further ordered the return of loan amounting to PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant
with legal interest.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).
Held: The Supreme Court find the respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

With regards to the return of the amount of PhP 2,200,000.00 to the complainant, the
Supreme Court did not sustain it because in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers,
the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a
member of the Bar.

It was noted that the respondent was already disbarred in CF Sharp Crew Management
v. Nicolas C. Torres for violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon
16 of the CPR. The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed. To
resolve the instant case before the Court, the respondent was found guilty of gross
misconduct and violation of the CPR. The respondent is hereby suspended for two
years from the practice of law.