G.R. No. A.C. No. 12878, January 31, 2023
Tomas G. Tan, Complainant, vs. Atty. Dennis C. Pangan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Tomas G. Tan engaged the services of respondent Atty. Dennis C. Pangan as collaborating counsel in a civil case. An Agreement dated June 20, 2013, stipulated a professional fee of PHP 2,050,000.00, with a money-back guarantee if the respondent failed to deliver a favorable decision. The trial court ruled against Tan. Failing to fulfill his promise, Atty. Pangan issued a postdated check for PHP 2,000,000.00, which was dishonored upon presentment for payment due to insufficient funds. Despite a demand letter, Atty. Pangan failed to return the money. Tan filed a disbarment complaint and a criminal case for estafa. In his Answer, Atty. Pangan did not deny receiving the amount or issuing the bouncing check but claimed he performed his duties and was willing to return the amount, less payment for services on a quantum meruit basis. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a two-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors modified to a one-year suspension. The Court noted that Atty. Pangan had been previously disciplined in three other administrative cases within the last four years.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
2. Whether respondent should be administratively disciplined and ordered to pay complainant the amount of PHP 2,050,000.00.

RULING

1. Yes. The Court ruled that a lawyer who issues worthless checks is guilty of gross misconduct and violates Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as it constitutes willful dishonesty and immoral conduct that undermines public confidence in law and lawyers. Atty. Pangan’s acts of reneging on his promise to return the money despite demands and issuing a bouncing check involving a substantial sum amount to gross misconduct.
2. Yes, respondent is DISBARRED and ORDERED to pay complainant PHP 2,050,000.00 with legal interest. The Court imposed the penalty of disbarment, finding that Atty. Pangan is a repeat offender, having been disciplined thrice in the last four years for various infractions including negligence, representing conflicting interests, and using offensive language. His absolute disregard of his oath and continuous transgressions demonstrate he has forfeited his privilege to be a member of the legal profession. Furthermore, the Court held that in the exercise of its disciplinary authority, it can order the return of money received by a lawyer in a professional capacity. The PHP 2,050,000.00, being part of his legal fees as evidenced by the Agreement, is intrinsically linked to his professional engagement and must be returned to complainant with legal interest. The pendency of a criminal case for estafa does not preclude the Court from ordering such restitution.