People v Tuanda

Fe P. Tuanda asks the court to lift her suspension

from the practice of law

Dec. 17, 1983: Tuanda received several pieces of

jewelry (valued at 36k) for sale on a commission bases from
Hermina
Marquez, with the condition that Tuanda turn over the sales
proceeds and return unsold items to Marquez on or before
Feb. 14,
1984

In Feb 1984, Tuanda issued 3 checks worth

15,450 to Marquez (which were dishonored by the bank for
insufficiency of funds)
instead of returning the jewelry still worth approximately
26,250

Tuanda made no other arrangements to repay

Marquez

She was sued by Marquez for estafa and 3 counts

of violation of BP 22 in the RTC
Acquitted of estafa, but guilty on all counts of violation of BP 22

CA affirmed in toto the RTC decision, but also

suspended Tuanda from the practice of law

Tuanda filed an appeal and motion to lift order of

suspension
W/N Tuanda was rightfully suspended YES

The offense she was guilty of involved moral

turpitude. Violation of BP 22 is a serious criminal offense
which affects public interest and order because it is harmful
to put useless papers in circulation

Under S27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the Revised

ROC, she can be suspended for having been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude

Also, the crimes of which respondent was

convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, both of
which she was bound to "obey the laws of the land."

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22
does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer;
however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral
character of a person convicted of such offense.

Motion to lift order of suspension is DENIED