Atty. Fe Tuanda was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila in violation of B.P. 22 with a fine and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the complainant Herminia Marquez. Respondent appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and imposed upon Atty. Fe Tuanda, in addition, the suspension from the practice of law until further orders from the Supreme Court. The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals noted respondent’s Notice of Appeal and advised her “to address her Notice of Appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court, the proper forum.” In the said motion, responded stated:
that suspension from the practice of law is indeed a harsh if not a not painful penalty aggravating the lower court’s penalty of fine considering that accused-appellant’s action on the case during the trial on the merits at the lower court has always been motivated purely by sincere belief that she is innocent of the offense charged nor of the intention to cause damage to the herein plaintiff-appellee.
Whether or not the imposed suspension for Atty. Tuanda may be lifted.
NO. Motion to Lift Order of Suspension denied.
[T]he crimes of which respondent was convicted [also] import deceit and violation of her attorney’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under 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.