Accordingly, the following provisions under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) [18] are relevant in the instant case: CANON II PROPRIETY A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical behavior. Section 1. Proper conduct . A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Section 2. Dignified conduct . . . . . A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession. A lawyer's issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him or her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him or her unworthy of public confidence. It also manifests a lawyer's low regard to his or her commitment to the oath he or she has taken when he or she joined the fold, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession that he or she should hold in high esteem. [19] Moreover, in the recent case of Tan v. Atty. Pangan , [20] the Court held that the respondent's act of reneging on a promise to return money despite repeated demands, his issuance of a bouncing check, and the substantial sum of money involved is tantamount to gross misconduct. [21] Here, it is evident from the records that respondent had an outstanding loan of PHP 500,000.00 to the complainant and that the check he issued was dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account, in violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. [22] He also made several promises to pay his debt promptly, yet, he reneged on his obligation to the extent that complainant was constrained to seek the assistance of another lawyer in order to demand payment from him. Clearly, such acts constitute gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is a serious offense, which is punishable by either or a combination of the following sanctions: (1) disbarment; (b) suspension from the practice of law for a period exceeding six months; or (c) a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.00. [23] In Lao v. Atty. Medel , [24] the Court held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. [25] In determining the appropriate penalty for the respondent's gross misconduct, the Court likewise considers the mitigating circumstances attendant to this case. Relevantly, Canon VI, Section 38 of the CPRA enumerates the following modifying circumstances which may be appreciated by the Court in determining the imposable penalty: Section 38. Modifying circu