16. Atty. Perez induced Eunice to invest money in a trading business with guaranteed profits. Atty. Perez assured Eunice that the business was doing well. Eunice agreed and delivered to Atty. Perez PHP 10,000,000.00 as capital investment. Atty. Perez issued to Eunice postdated checks with amounts representing her capital and expected profits. Thereafter, Eunice discovered that the trading business was a sham and that the checks were all drawn against a closed account. Aggrieved, Eunice filed against Atty. Perez a criminal action for estafa and a disbarment complaint for gross misconduct. Atty. Perez sought to suspend the disciplinary charge against him pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. Atty. Perez explained that his innocence or acquittal constitutes a prejudicial question to his administrative liability arising from similar incidents. Does the pending criminal action constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the disbarment case? Explain.