Vitriolo vs. Dasig, AC 4984, April 1, 2003
Facts: This is an administrative case for disbarment filed against Atty. Felina S.
Dasig, an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The charge
involves gross misconduct of respondent in violation of the Attorney’s Oath for
having used her public office to secure financial spoils to the detriment of the
dignity and reputation of the CHED. Almost all complainants in the instant case
are high-ranking officers of the CHED. In their sworn Complaint-Affidavit filed with
this Court on December 4, 1998, complainants allege that respondent, while she
was OIC of Legal Affairs Service, CHED, committed acts that are grounds for
disbarment under Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
She demanded from Betty C. Mangohon, a teacher of Our Lady of Mariazel
Educational Center in Novaliches, Quezon City, the amount of P5,000.00 for the
facilitation of her application for correction of name then pending before the
Legal Affairs Service, CHED. she demanded from Rosalie B. Dela Torre, a student,
the amount of P18,000.00 to P20,000.00 for facilitation of her application for
correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED. She
demanded from Rocella G. Eje, a student, the amount of P5,000.00 for facilitation
of her application for correction of name then pending before the Legal Affairs
Service, CHED. She demanded from Jacqueline N. Ng, a student, a considerable
amount which was subsequently confirmed to be P15,000.00 and initial fee of
P5,000.00 more or less for facilitation of her application for correction of name
then pending before the Legal Affairs Service, CHED.
Complainants likewise aver that respondent violated her oath as attorney-at-law
by filing eleven (11) baseless, groundless, and unfounded suits before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, which were subsequently dismissed.
Further, complainants charge respondent of transgressing sub-paragraph b (22),
Section 36 of Presidential Decree No. 807, for her willful failure to pay just debts
owing to “Borela Tire Supply” and “Nova’s Lining Brake & Clutch” as evidenced by
the dishonored checks she issued, the complaint sheet, and the subpoena issued
to respondent
Complainants also allege that respondent instigated the commission of a crime
against complainant Celedonia R .Coronacion and Rodrigo Coronacion, Jr., when
she encouraged and ordered her son, Jonathan Dasig, a guard of the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology, to draw his gun and shoot the Coronacions on the
evening of May14, 1997. As a result of this incident, a complaint for grave threats
against the respondent and her son, docketed as Criminal Case No. 86052, was
lodged with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36.
Finally, complainants allege that respondent authored and sent to then President
Joseph Estrada a libelous and unfair report, which maligned the good names and
reputation of no less than eleven (11) CHED Directors calculated to justify her ill
motive of preventing their re-appointment and with the end view of securing an
appointment for herself.
IBP CBD: extortion; For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that respondent
be suspended from the practice of law for the maximum period allowable of three
(3) years with a further warning that similar action in the future will be a ground
for disbarment of respondent.
IBP GOV: RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and
APPROVED. Respondent is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three
(3) years
Issue: Whether the Respondent violated her Oath as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held: Yes, respondent Arty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct
and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s attempts to extort money from persons
with applications or requests pending before her office are violative of Rule
1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits members of the
Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts.
Moreover, said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.0219 of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion
of private interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any
transaction requiring the approval of his office or which may be affected by the
functions of his office. Respondent’s conduct in office falls short of the integrity
and good moral character required from all lawyers, specially from one occupying
a high public office. For a lawyer in public office is expected not only to refrain
from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and confidence of
the citizenry in government, she must also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.
Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and
is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.
For her violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as of Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.03 of
Canon 120 and Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
particularly for acts of dishonesty as well as gross misconduct as OIC, Legal
Services, CHED, we find that respondent deserves not just the penalty of three
years’ suspension from membership in the Bar as well as the practice of law, as
recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, but outright disbarment. Her name
shall be stricken off the list of attorneys upon finality of this decision.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Felina S. Dasig is found liable for gross misconduct
and dishonesty in violation of the Attorney’s Oath as well as the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and is hereby ordered DISBARRED.
Lim vs. Barcelona, AC 5438, March 10, 2004
Petitioner: Dan Joel V. Lim – a businessman and owner of Top Gun Billiards.
Richard C. Tan – a businessman and owner of Tai Hing Glass Supply.
Complaint : alleged robbery or extortion and violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act
Respondent: Atty. Edilberto Barcelona – Attorney IV and Chief of the Public
Assistance Center of the National Labor Relations Center (NLRC).
Defense of the Petitioner/s: Complainants both allege in their complaints that
sometime in August 2000, respondent Atty. Barcelona phoned them introducing
himself as a lawyer and Chief of the Public Assstance Center of the NLRC. Atty.
Barcelona informed them that one of their employees filed a labor complaint
against them and that it was necessary for them to seek and talk with the
respondent. Respondent warned Lim that if he won’t settle the case, he would
shut down Top Gun Billiards. To settle the case means the payment of Php20,000.
In support of Lim’s allegations, he submitted a written complaint of Arnel E.
Daitan and Pilipino Ubante. According to them, they met Atty. Barcelona in Top
Gun Billiards where they often played billiards. One day, respondent asked them
to sign a letter without them fully understanding what was it about. These two
added that they did not have any complaint against their employer, Lim. Despite
such withdrawal, Atty. Barcelona still pursued the case and continued asking Lim
to settle the case over Php20,000.
Because of Atty. Barcelona’s strange behavior, Lim seek the help of the NBI which
then led to an entrapment operation against the respondent. Lim finally agreed to
settle the case with Atty. Barcelona and after handing over the payment, Atty.
Barcelona was immediately arrested by the NBI officers. This event was
corroborated by one Aurora Cruz y Libunao, owner of a calinderia adjacent to Top
Gun Billiards. Atty. Barcelona was turned over by the NBI to the City Prosecutor of
Manila which eventually indicted him for robbery/execution.
With regard to Richard Tan, Atty. Barcelona did exactly the same thing. He
informed Tan that, Bryan Tellen, one of his employees filed an illegal dismissal
case against him. Respondent said that Tan would need to settle the case over
Php20,000.00 – Php30,0000.00 but Tan said he didn’t have that kind of money.
Respondent lowered the amount to Php15,000.00.
Allegations of the Respondent: Respondent alleges that he normally played
billiards at the Top Gun Billiard Center where he met certain employees of the
billiard center and learned that he was a Lawyer and Chief of the Public Assistance
Officer of the NLRC. They confided in him their grievance against Lim, for his
violation of the Labor Code. Respondent gave them assistance that with proper
complaint and required documentation accomplished, respondent’s office
scheduled the case for a dialogue-conference between the complaining workers
and their employer. Respondent also alleges that he was a victim of theft and
billiard hustling. Respondent said that he received a phone call from Lim
informing him that Ian Govan admitted in taking Atty. Barcelona’s cellphone and
that they are willing to return it at 8PM at the Top Gun Billiard Center. The phone
could not be retrieved so Lim will be giving the equivalent value of the cellphone
in cash. Lim persistently whispered to him to accept the money and when the
money was placed in his attach case, he was arrested.
IBP CBD: suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a period of two
years
IBP GOV: imposed the penalty of disbarment for the reason that respondent in
fact attempted to extort money as Chief of the Public Assistance Center of the
NLRC to threaten/coerce Lim and that no less than the NBI caught him in the act
of receiving and counting the money extorted from Lim.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Barcelona is guilty of corrupt activity, deceit and gross
misconduct? - YES
Fallo: WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edilberto Barcelona is found administratively
guilty of corrupt activity, deceit, and gross misconduct and is hereby ordered
DISBARRED. Let his name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys effective
immediately, and this resolution spread in his record in this Court and circulated
to all courts in the Philippines. SO ORDERED.
Held: YES. As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed
to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession.
We have held previously that if a lawyer’s misconduct in the discharge of his
official duties as government official is of such a character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a
member of the Bar on such ground.
Rule1.02oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibilityprovidesthatalawyershall not
counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence
in the legal system. Extortion by a government lawyer, an outright violation of the
law, calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. With the aforesaid rule a high
standard of integrity is demanded of a government lawyer as compared to a
private practitioner because the delinquency of a government lawyer erodes the
peoples trust and confidence in the government.
Needless to say, lawyers owe it to the court and to society not to stir up
litigations. Employees of the billiards hall, Ditan and Ubante, swore that
respondent public officer encouraged complainant Lims workers to file a case
against the latter. Rule 1.03 of the same Code states that a lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man’s cause.
Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against lawyers is not only
to punish and discipline the erring individual lawyers, but also to safeguard the
administration of justice by protecting the courts and the public from the
misconduct of lawyers and to remove from the legal profession persons whose
utter disregard of the lawyers oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging
the trust reposed in them as members of the bar.
Collantes vs. Renomeron, AC 3056, August 16, 1991
Facts: As early as January 15, 1987, V & G had requested the respondent Register
of Deeds to register some 163 deeds of sale with assignment of lots of the V & G
mortgaged to GSIS by the lot buyers. There was no action from the respondent.
Although V & G complied with the desired requirements, respondent Renomeron
suspended the registration of the documents pending compliance by V & G with a
certain “special arrangement” between them. Fed up with the respondent’s
extortionate tactics, the complainant wrote him a letter on May 20, 1987
challenging him to act on all pending applications for registration of V & G within
twenty-four (24) hours. On May 22, 1987, respondent formally denied registration
of the transfer of 163 certificates of title to the GSIS on the uniform ground that
the deeds of absolute sale with assignment were ambiguous as to parties and
subject matter. On May 27, 1987, respondent elevated the matter en consulta to
the Administrator, Land Registration Authority [LRA]. Exasperated by
respondent’s conduct, the complainant filed with the NLTDRA on June 4, 1987
administrative charges against respondent Register of Deeds. LRA Administrator
Teodoro G. Bonifacio on February 22, 1988, recommended to Secretary of Justice
Sedfrey A. Ordoñez that the respondent: (1) be found guilty of simple neglect of
duty: (2) be reprimanded to act with dispatch on documents presented to him for
registration; and (3) be warned that a repetition of similar infraction will be dealt
with more severely. After due investigation of the charges, Secretary Ordoñez
found respondent guilty of grave misconduct, recommended to President
Corazon C. Aquino that Renomeron be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture
of leave credits and retirement benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in
the government service, effective immediately. Less than two weeks after filing
his complaint against Renomeron in the NLTDRA, Attorney Collantes also filed in
this Court on June 16, 1987, a disbarment complaint against said respondent.
Issue: Whether the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be
disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a public official.
Held: Yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his
lawyer’s oath. An oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for
money or malice. The lawyer’s oath is a source of his obligations and its violation
is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action.
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). Just as the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials requires public officials and employees to
process documents and papers expeditiously (Sec. 5, subpars. [c] and [d] and
prohibits them from directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest in
any transaction requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them from
soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office (See. 7, subpars. [a] and
[d]), the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or interest”
(Rule 103).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that AttorneyVicente C. Renomeron be
disbarred from the practice of lawin the Philippines, and that his name be stricken
off theRoll of Attorneys.