CASE NAME: TOMLIN II VS. ATTY.

MOYA II Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even
A.C NO. 6971| 23 FEBRUARY 2006 | if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative
Topic: PREJUDICIAL QUESTION proceeding. This is because the criminal case instituted refer to Moya’s act
of making or drawing and issuance of worthless checks; while the present
FACTS: administrative case seeks to discipline him as a lawyer for his dishonest act
 Atty. Moya allegedly borrowed from Tomlin P600,000 partially covered of failing to pay his debt in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility
by 7 postdated checks however, when he tried to encash them on their (CPR).
respective due dates, the checks were dishonored by drawee bank.
 Tomlin made several demands but Moya still failed and refused to pay Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of criminal
his debt without justifiable reasons. Consequently, former instituted case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, the
seven counts of violation of BP nlg. 22 before MTC Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Court will be rendered helpless from applying the rules on admission to and
In addition he filed the instant case for respondent’s disbarment. continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that
 Atty. Moya alleged that the case be dismissed for violation of the rule the criminal case is pending final disposition when the objective of two
on forum shopping. He argued that Tomlin did not inform IBP about the proceedings are vastly disparate.
cases he filed for violation of BP Blg. 22 and that the filing of
administrative case despite pendency of criminal cases is a form of
harassment which should not be allowed.
 Commission on Bar Discipline: denied the MTD.
 Investigating Commissioner: recommended that Moya be suspended
from practice of law for 1 year. It its report, it was noted that Moya
failed to file an answer despite several requests for extension.
Moreover, it was observed that the pending criminal action against
Moya does not pose a prejudicial question to the resolution of the
issued in the present administrative case.
 IBO Board of Governors: approved the report of investigating
commissioner but modified the penalty of suspension from 1 year to 2
years.

ISSUE: WON the pending criminal action against Moya pose a prejudicial
question to the resolution of administrative case

HELD: NO. 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 guilty beyond reasonable doubt while
in an administrative case, only preponderance of evidence is required.