Wee Cruz Vs Lim

l\.epublic of tbe Jlbilippines.
/ :.- :, ... :'t.;

....: ,: ,.... :,:.. -......~:;,:.
.:;;/.;.
A.upr&m& "~ourt
:l
~
. ... .... ~ .,, " r .., .. .. .,
\ . ': /I'.' I i' I l ' , I ,I 11~ ' \

r''. .
~ 'CJ.,
;ffltlmtiln
i \ !;.;... ,.: ........-...i.
1:;.
'1
~:/ :\ AlJG 26 2016 C

~ i: l
r'..,.
\ :1
\I
f._ .., -~)"."~r:"-'.,-\.._,..-e,.,;
~ ~:_.::..J \.Jc....;;."-!
EN BANC
. -
-----
...... -----
.. -- --------
-.~~~; __
JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ,

Complainant,
~J
v ~.. ,'.:./
A.C. No. 11380

Present:
- versus -
ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM,

Respondent.
SERENO, CJ,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,*
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA, and
CAGUIOA,JJ
Promulgated:
Au~ust
x--------------------------
16, 2016
>~~~- ~
------------------------x
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
This administrative case arose from a Complaint' for disbarment or
suspension filed by Jen Sherry Wee-Cruz (complainant) against Atty.
Chichina Faye Lim (respondent) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). The IBP found respondent guilty of gross misconduct because of her
issuance of worthless checks to complainant's brother. The IBP Board of
Governors thereafter resolved to disbar respondent from the practice of law. 2
On leave.
1
Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2
Resolution dated 11 October 2014 in CBD Case No.J 1-2949; id. at 379-380.
Decision
'
A.C. No. 11380
As a preliminary matter, this Court reiterates that it alone has the

power to discipline lawyers and remove their names from the rolls. 3 The IBP
Board of Governors may only recommend the dismissal of a complaint or
4
the imposition of disciplinary action on a respondent lawyer.
While it adopts the factual findings of the IBP, this Court finds that
the penalty of suspension for two years will suffice.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The parties to this case were childhood friends. 5 This relationship

enabled respondent to borrow substantial amounts of money from
complainant and the latter's brother. 6 Complainant enumerated three
instances when her trust was abused by respondent in order to obtain loans
the latter could not pay.
First instance. In 2008, respondent asked if she could use the credit
card of complainant to purchase something. 7 As the latter was then unable to
get out of the house because of a delicate pregnancy, she had to ask
respondent to withdraw P 10, 000 from her A TM card to pay for her credit
card bill. 8 Complainant tendered both her ATM card, which had an available
balance of P78.000, and her credif card. 9 She later found out that respondent
had depleted all the funds in the ATM card and used up a considerable
amount from the cash advance limit of the credit card. 10 Despite the repeated
demands of complainant and the consequent execution of a promissory note
by respondent, the latter still failed to pay the principal amount of Pl 42,000
and the interests thereon that had accrued. 11
Second instance. Also in 2008, respondent incurred a Pl .055 million
loan from complainant's brother. 12 The loan was covered by postdated
checks, which were later dishonored and returned by the bank for the reason
that the account had been closed. 13 In September 2010, respondent issued a
promissory note, which remained unfulfilled as of the date of filing of the
. 14
Comp Iamt.
Article VIII. Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution confers upon the Supreme Cowi the power to
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law.
4
Section 12(b) of Ru1e 139-B, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645.
5
Rollo, pp. 2, 381.
6
Id. at 381.
7
Id. at 5
8
Id.
9
Id.
io Id.
II Id.
12
Id. at 2.
13
Id. at 3.
14
Id. at 3.
r('
Decision
A.C. No. 11380
Third instance. In February 2010, respondent issued postdated checks

payable to "Cash" as partial payment of the outstanding loan
accommodation for more than P3 million, which had been extended to her
by complainant. 15 These checks were later dishonored and returned by the
16
bank for the reason that the account had been closed.
Complainant and her brother repeatedly called and sent text messages
to petitioner to inform her that her checks had been dishonored and to
demand that she make good on her checks. 17 On 7 October 2010,
complainant personally handed a demand letter to respondent. 18 As the latter
still failed to honor her promises to pay, complainant instituted a criminal
complaint. The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict
respondent for four counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Elg. 22 (B.P.
22); and Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. 19
On 15 March 2011, complainant lodged a Complaint against
respondent before the IBP.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
IBP
Despite due notice, respondent did not submit an Answer, appear at

the mandatory conference, or submit a position paper. 20
IBP Commissioner Felimon C. Abelita III took the silence and
nonparticipation of respondent as an admission of guilt. 21 He pointed out
that her attitude was a clear defiance of the commission and the institution it
represented. 22 Hence, he recommended that respondent be suspended until
she is able to pay in full her indebtedness to complainant's brother. 23
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the Report and
Recommendation of Commissioner Abelita with the modification that
respondent be disbarred, not merely suspended. The board considered her
disrespect and disregard of its orders as an aggravating circumstance. 24
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 381.
Id.
Id.
Report and Resolution dated 7 June 2013, id. at 381-382.

Notice of Resolution dated 11October2014, id. at 379.
Decision
A.C. No. 11380
On 14 April 2016, respondent filed a Petition for Review on

Certiorari before this Court. She asserts that she did not exhibit any immoral
25
or deceitful conduct because the acts were done in her private capacity.
She insists that she exhibited good faith and an honest intention to settle, as
26
she made partial payments amounting to Pl .2 million. She blames
complainant for not giving adequate time for the former to settle the face
value of the checks. 27 In closing, respondent submits that disbarment would
be too harsh a penalty, considering the absence of bad faith, malice or spite
on her part. 28
THE RULING OF THE COURT
Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for violation

of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent cannot evade disciplinary sanctions by implying that there
was no attorney-client relationship between her and complainant. In Nulada
v. Paulma, 29 this Court reiterated that by taking the Lawyer's Oath, lawyers
become guardians of the law and indispensable instruments for the orderly
administration of justice. As such, they can be disciplined for any
misconduct, be it in their professional or in their private capacity, and
thereby be rendered unfit to continue to be officers of the court. 30
In this cGse, complainant and her brother categorically stated that they
had agreed to lend substantial amounts of money to respondent, because
"she's a lawyer." 31 Indeed, lawyers are held by the community in very high
esteem; yet respondent eroded this goodwill when she repeatedly broke her
promises to pay and make good on her checks.
On several occasions, this Court has had to discipline members of the
legal profession for their issuance of worthless checks. In Enriquez v. De
32
Vera,
the correlation between BP 22 and administrative cases against
lawyers was explained:
Being a lawyer, respondent was well aware of the objectives and coverage
of [BP] 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for
the law was penal in character and application. His issuance of the
25
at 394.
at 395-398.
27
at 398.
28
at 400-40 I.
29
A.C. No. 8172 (Resolution), 12 April 2016.
:io Id. citing Forondav. Alvarez, Jr., AC No. 9976, 25 June 2014, 727 SCRA 155, 164, further citing de
Chavez-Blanco v. Lumasag, Jr., 603 Phil. 59, 65 (2009).
11
See the Judicial Affidavit executed by complainant on 8 March 2013, rollo, p. 70; and the Judicial
Affidavit executed by complainant's brother, Uhent Jourwen T. Wee, on 8 March 2013, id. at 91.
32
A.C. No. 8330, 16 March 2015.
26
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Decision
A.C. No. 11380
unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated [BP] 22, and

exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of his illegal act to
public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath
that enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws.
This Court, however, agrees with respondent that the penalty of

disbarment would be too harsh. Recognizing the consequence
of disbarment on the economic life and honor of an erring lawyer, this Court
held in Anacta v. Resurreccion 33 that disbarment should not be decreed
where any punishment less severe would accomplish the end desired.
In Nulada, this Court cited Heenan v. Espejo, 34 A-1 Financial
Services, Inc. v. Valerio, 35 Dizon v. De Taza, 36 and Wong v. Moya l/37 as
basis for meting out two-year suspensions to lawyers who had issued
worthless checks and failed to pay their debts. In Sanchez v. Torres, 38 the
same penalty was imposed. The respondent lawyer therein was found guilty
of wilful dishonesty and unethical conduct for failing to pay his debt and for
issuing checks without sufficient funds. As in this case, Atty. Torres
exploited his friendship with the complainant therein in order to borrow a
substantial amount of money. We find it appropriate to impose the same
penalty on respondent in this case.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Chichina Faye Lim is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for two years. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in her
personal record at the Office of the Bar Confidant, and a copy be served on
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court
Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
33
692 Phil. 488 (2012).

A.C. No. 10050, 3 December 2013, 711 SCRA 290.
35
636 Phil. 627 (2010).
36
A.C. 7676, 10 June 2014, 726 SCRA 70.
37
590 Phil. 279, 289 (2008).
38
A.C. No. I 0240, 25 November 2014, 741 SCRA 620.
34
A.C. No. 11380
Decision
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
~~~~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
(On leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
.PERALTA
Justice
~~~~~~;?
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice
JOSE C1l'RAL 1'tJENDOZA

ciate Justice
Associate Justice
\
MO. W-/
ESTELA M.'1PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
INS. CAGUIOA
Associate Justice
CERTiFIED XEROX COPY:
~tp~~~~
cu: HK OF Gf.Wrn' EN BANC
81JPl-ffMt:: Gm~:~T

Wee Cruz Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wee Cruz Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wee Cruz Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

l\.epublic of tbe Jlbilippines.

/ :.- :, ... :'t.;

\ . ': /I'.' I i' I l ' , I ,I 11~ ' \

i \ !;.;... ,.: ........-...i.

~:/ :\ AlJG 26 2016 C

f._ .., -~)"."~r:"-'.,-\.._,..-e,.,;

JEN SHERRY WEE-CRUZ,

A.C. No. 11380

ATTY. CHICHINA FAYE LIM,

A.C. No. 11380

As a preliminary matter, this Court reiterates that it alone has the

The parties to this case were childhood friends. 5 This relationship

A.C. No. 11380

Third instance. In February 2010, respondent issued postdated checks

Despite due notice, respondent did not submit an Answer, appear at

Report and Resolution dated 7 June 2013, id. at 381-382.

A.C. No. 11380

On 14 April 2016, respondent filed a Petition for Review on

Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for violation

A.C. No. 11380

unfunded check involved herein knowingly violated [BP] 22, and

This Court, however, agrees with respondent that the penalty of

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

692 Phil. 488 (2012).

A.C. No. 11380

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

JOSE C1l'RAL 1'tJENDOZA

CERTiFIED XEROX COPY:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.