Case No. 6: Victoria C. Heenan VS.

Atty Erlina Espejo

A. C. No. 10050
December 3, 2013

FACTS: Despite being new acquaintances, Victoria Heenan loaned Atty. Espejo
P250,000 as the latter was introduced to her as her godmother’s lawyer. To secure
the payment of the loan, Atty Espejo turned over a check covering the loan and
agreed interest amounting to P275,000. Heenan was not able to encash said check
on its due date upon request of the respondent. The respondent issued a second
check amounting to the agreed interest which was similarly dishonored by the bank
due to insufficiency of funds.

With the sustained failure to pay and disregard of notices and subpoenas issued by
the court,Heenan filed a criminal complaint against the respondent for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and estafa. After the only preliminary investigation which
respondent attended, she issued another check amounting to P275,000, which was
again dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. After the case was submitted for
resolution, complainant filed the instant administrative case against Espejo before the
Committee on Bar Discipline. The respondent did not submit any answer to the case
filed nor appeared for a mandatory conference.

ISSUE: Was the case filed by Heenan against Espejo valid despite the fact that the
acts complained were not committed in her capacity as a lawyer?

RULING:YES. The fact that Atty. Espejo obtained the loan and issued the worthless
check in her private capacity and not as an attorney of Victoria is of no moment. As
we have held in several cases, a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice
and dishonestly n his profession but also for gross misconduct outside of his
professional capacity. While the Court may not ordinarily discipline a lawyer for
misconduct committed in his non-professional or private capacity, the Court may be
justified in suspending or removing him as an attorney where his misconduct outside
of the lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross in character as to show him morally
unfitand unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer.

Atty. Espejo’s issuance of worthless checks and her blatant refusal to heed the
directives of the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office and the IBP contravene Canon 1,
Rule 1.01; Canon 7, Rule7.03; and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. In line with this, the Supreme Court upheld the recommendation of the
CBP to penalize Espejo with suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
However, it did not sustain the IBP’s recommendation to order Atty. Espejo to return
the money she borrowed from Victoria. The Court claimed that 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. Therefore, its concern is the
determination of respondent’s administrative liability. Its findings have no material
bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each
other.