FACTS: Quirino Tomlin II filed a complaint before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP against Atty. Salvador N. Moya II for allegedly reneging on his monetary obligations and for having issued bouncing checks, which violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22. Complainant averred that respondent borrowed from him P600,000.00 partially covered by seven postdated checks. However, when complainant tried to encash them on their respective due dates, the checks were all dishonored by the drawee bank.
After several demands, the last being a formal letter sent on September 25, 2002, respondent still failed and refused to pay his debt without justifiable reason. Subsequently, complainant instituted a case for seven counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against the respondent before the MTC. In addition, he filed the instant case for respondent’s disbarment.
Respondent sought the outright dismissal of the complaint for violation of the rule on non-forum shopping. He argued that complainant did not inform the IBP about the cases he filed for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 against respondent pending before the MTC. Moreover, respondent argued that the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency of the criminal cases is a form of harassment which should not be allowed.
The Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent failed to file an answer and/or position paper despite several requests for extension, in disregard of the orders of the IBP. Moreover, it was observed that the pending criminal action against respondent does not pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the issues in the present administrative case. Hence, it was recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report of the Investigating Commissioner. However, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law was modified from one year to two years.
ISSUE: Whether the filing of the administrative case despite the pendency of the criminal cases constitutes prejudicial question.
RULING: No. The Criminal Case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 refer to the respondent’s act of making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks; while the present administrative case seeks to discipline respondent as a lawyer for his dishonest act of failing to pay his debt in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In the present case, respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. The burden of proof in a criminal case is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in an administrative case, only preponderance of evidence is required.
Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless from applying the rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.
