A.C. No. 11520 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5472) - TITA* MANGAYAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. CIPRIANO G. ROBIELOS III.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Complainant respectfully prays that [the] instant Verified Disbarment Complaint, after due hearing, judgment be rendered finding the Respondent Guilty for violation of the Professional Code of Responsibility for lawyers and he should be meted with the supreme penalty of disbarment or suspension. [2] FACTS Loan with complainant Sometime in 1995, respondent contracted a loan from the complainant in the amount of P594,185.00. As payment for the obligation, respondent issued four postdated checks (the first set of checks), all drawn against Philam Savings Bank-United Nations Branch. [3] The details of the checks are as follows: Drawee Bank Check No. Date Amount Philam Savings Bank 0002655 October 17, 1995 P24,560.00 Philam Savings Bank 0002661 October 22, 1995 P281,750.00 Philam Savings Bank 0002654 October 13, 1995 P37,975.00 Philam Savings Bank 0002653 October 1, 1995 P249,900.00 Total P594,185.00 [4] When the obligation fell due, complainant presented the checks for payment but were all subsequently dishonored. Immediately, complainant informed respondent of the bounced checks and the latter committed to replacing the dishonored checks. However, for six years no replacement was ever given by respondent. As such, complainant initiated a criminal complaint for a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) which eventually reached the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. [5] The case was, however, archived due to respondent's failure to attend the scheduled arraignment. [6] Respondent remained at large for several years until his successful arrest sometime in 2016. It was only at this point that he had resumed communications with complainant regarding his obligations. Desirous for an expeditious settlement of her claims against respondent, complainant entered into a Compromise Agreement [7] dated May 2, 2016 with respondent. In pursuit of the Compromise Agreement, respondent committed to replace the first set of checks issued. [8] Accordingly, respondent issued four postdated Bank of Commerce checks (the replacement checks) [9] with an aggregate value of P500,000.00, to wit: Drawee Bank Check No. Date Amount Bank of Commerce 0000053 August 2, 2016 P217,516.00 Bank of Commerce 0000056 August 2, 2016 P100,000.00 Bank of Commerce 0000055 August 2, 2016 P74,384.00 Bank of Commerce 0000054 August 2, 2016 P108,100.00 Total P500,000.00 [10] At the time the replacement checks were agreed to be deposited for payment, respondent requested for at least eight extensions of time. In all these instances, complainant acceded to the request of respondent and refrained from depositing the replacement checks. [11] However, on September 16, 2016more than a month after the due date for the payment of his obligation under the Compromise Agreementrespondent stopped communicating with complainant. [12] Complainant was thus constrained to present the replacement checks for payment. But, much to her chagrin, the replacement checks we