PAGCOR vs Carandang

FACTS:
1. A verified complaint for disbarment filed by PAGCOR against the respondent,
Atty. Dante Carandang, president of Bingo Royal Inc. a private corp. organized
under the laws of the Phil.
2. The complaint alleges that On Feb. 2, 1999, PAGCOR and BR executed a
Grant of Authority to Operate Bingo Games, it is mandates BRI to remit
20% of gross sales to PAGCOR.
3. In the course of its operations, BR incurred unpaid amount of more than 6M
pesos as of Nov. 2001. Instead of demanding payment therefor, PAGCOR
allowed BR and Atty. Carandang to pay the said amount in monthly
installment of 300k from July 2001 to June 2003.
4. BR then issued to PAGCOR twenty-four(24) checks in the sum of 7.2M signed
by the respondent.
5. 5.However, when the checks were deposited after the end of each month,
they were all dishonored by reason of BR Closed Account.
6. Despite PAGCORs demand letters, respondent failed to pay the amounts of
the checks.
7. Thus, PAGCOR filed with Office of the City Prosecutors of Manila criminal
complaints for violation of BP 22 against the respondent and contends that in
issuing those bouncing checks, the respondent is liable for serious
misconduct, violation of Lawyers Oath and CPR and prays that his name be
stricken from the Rolls of Attorneys.
8. Respondent averred that he is not liable for issuing bouncing checks because
they were drawn by BR and maintains that the dishonor of the checks as
caused by circumstances beyond his control.
ISSUE: WoN respondent Atty. Carandang is guilty of serious misconduct and in
violative of CPR?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Carandang is declared guilty of serious misconduct and violations of
Atty. Oath and CPR.

It is clearly a choice for an individual (especially one learned in the law),

whether in a personal capacity or officer of a corporation, to do so after
assessing and weighing the consequences and risk for doing so. As a
president of BRI, he cannot be said to be unaware of the probability that BRI,
the company he runs, could not raise funds, totally or partially, to cover the
checks as they fell due.
By issuing the bouncing checks in violation of BP 22, respondent clearly was
irresponsible and displayed lack of concern for the rights of others nor for the
canons of CPR.
A lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his
profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity.

Penalty: Suspended from the practice of law for 6months.

RATIO:
Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.