MARIFE C. MANONGSONG, COMPLAINANT, vs. . ATTY. ARIEL M. REYES.
- G.R. Number: A.C. No. 13998
- Promulgated: 2025-08-13
- Ponente: ROSARIO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Atty. Ariel Reyes borrowed PHP 1 million from Marife Manongsong, issuing two Metrobank checks of PHP 500,000.00 each as security. Manongsong successfully encashed the first check, but the second check was dishonored by Metrobank for being drawn against a closed account. Despite repeated assurances from Atty. Reyes to pay, he failed to settle the remaining balance. Manongsong's demand letter sent to Atty. Reyes went unheeded, and she could no longer contact him. Consequently, Manongsong filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Reyes before the IBP-CBD for gross misconduct. In his Answer, Atty. Reyes pleaded for understanding, citing financial devastation due to economic decisions aggravated by the pandemic. During the IBP proceedings, Atty. Reyes repeatedly failed to submit a mandatory conference brief, appear at the conference, or submit a position paper. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found him guilty of gross misconduct for issuing a worthless check and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this to a six-month suspension. ## Issues 1. Did Atty. Ariel Reyes commit gross misconduct by issuing a worthless check and failing to pay a financial obligation? 2. Did Atty. Ariel Reyes violate the **Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)** by failing to comply with the orders of the IBP? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** **YES**, Atty. Ariel Reyes committed gross misconduct by issuing a worthless check and failing to pay a financial obligation. The Court found that Atty. Reyes had an outstanding loan of PHP 500,000.00 to Manongsong and that the check he issued was dishonored for being drawn against a closed account, in violation of **Batas Pambansa Blg. 22**. These acts constitute gross misconduct under **Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA**, which require lawyers to act with propriety, maintain honesty, and avoid deceitful conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law. The Court referenced **Tan v. Atty. Pangan**, which held that reneging on a promise to return money and issuing a bouncing check constitutes gross misconduct. However, the Court considered several mitigating circumstances. Atty. Reyes expressed remorse by pleading for understanding and citing financial hardship due to the pandemic. The Court also noted that the first check cleared, showing an initial intent to repay the loan. Recognizing **Canon VI, Section 38(a) of the CPRA**, which allows for humanitarian considerations and analogous circumstances, and citing **Egger v. Atty. Duran**, where a lawyer's dire financial condition and willingness to repay were considered mitigating, the Court modified the penalty to a six-month suspension from the practice of law. **Issue 2:** **YES**, Atty. Ariel Reyes violated the **CPRA** by failing to comply with the orders of the IBP. The Court held that Atty. Reyes's deliberate disregard of the IBP's orders—failing to submit a mandatory conference brief, appearing at the mandatory conference, and submitting a position paper—constituted a violation of **Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA**, which requires lawyers to promote respect for legal processes and consciously assist in the speedy administration of justice. This non-compliance is classified as a less serious offense under **Canon VI, Section 34(c) of the CPRA**. Citing **Grand Pillar International Development, Inc. v. Atty. Cruz**, where a similar failure to obey IBP orders resulted in a fine, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 50,000.00 on Atty. Reyes for his continued defiance. ## Doctrines - **Gross Misconduct**: Issuance of checks that are later dishonored for being drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer's unfitness for trust, lack of personal honesty and good moral character, and a low regard for their commitment to the legal profession. - **Lawyer's Obligation to Pay Debts**: Lawyers are expected to maintain financial integrity and promptly pay financial…
Keywords
Canon II Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon III Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI Section 33 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI Section 37 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon VI Section 38 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 Section 1, Mitigating Circumstances in Administrative Cases, Lawyers and Prompt Payment of Financial Obligations, Administrative Case against a Lawyer, Gross Misconduct, Dishonored Checks, Violation of IBP Orders, Suspension from Practice of Law, IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Due Notice, Preponderance of Evidence, Leniency, Suspension with Fine, Modification of Penalty