A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016 PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, DULY REPRESENTED Y ERLINDA I. ILD ILDNE NER, R, Complainant , v. ATTY. LUIS LUIS !. LO!IN, LO!IN, "R. AND ATTY. SI!INI SI!INI C. LAASTILLA, Respondents. Respondents . PERLAS#ERNAE, J. PERLAS#ERNAE, J.$$ %ACTS$
The Complaint alleged that sometime in June 2007, the Senate, through through its Committee on Government Corporati Corporations ons and Public Public Enterpr Enterprises ises,, conducte conducted d an investiga investigation tion concern concerning ing the anomal anomalies ies that that plagu plagued ed the PH!C" PH!C"#S$ #S$T T group group o% compan companies ies,, &hich &hich inclu include des s complainant, particularl' in its huge disbursements o% monies and(or assets) n the course o% the said investigation, the Senate e*amined various +nancial records and docu docume ment nts s o% the the comp compan an', ', &hic &hich h at that that time time,, &er &ere unde underr the the cont contrrol and and management o% $tt') !oin, Jr) and his co-directors) $mong the records e*amined b' the Senate &as an entr' in complainant.s checboo stub &hich reads /Cash %or Sandig Sandiganb anba'a a'an, n, tro, tro, potc-p potc-phil hilcom comsa satt case case - P2, P2,000 000,00 ,000/ 0/ 1sub 1subect ect chec checboo boo entr entr'3 '3)) t &as &as then then disc discov over ered ed that that the the chec chec &as &as issu issued ed in conn connec ecti tion on &ith &ith complain complainant.s ant.s inuncti inunction on case against against Philippi Philippine ne "verseas "verseas Telecommun elecommunicati ications ons Corporation 1P"TC3 be%ore the Sandiganba'an, &hich &as +led b' $tt') !oin, Jr).s group, group, as its repres representat entatives ives,, &ith $tt') $tt') !abastill !abastilla a as its e*terna e*ternall counsel counsel 1P"TC 1P"TC case3) $s the investigation &as publici4ed b' the media, the Sandiganba'an learned about the subect checboo entr' and, accordingl', motu proprio initiated indirect indirect contempt proceedings against respondents, along several others) $%ter due proceedings, the Sandiganba'an promulgated a 5esolution dated #a' 7, 2006, +nding respondents guilt' be'ond reasonable doubt o% indirect contempt and, accordingl', sentenced each o% them to pa' a +ne in the amount o% P0,000)00 and to suer impris imprisonm onment ent %or a period period o% si* si* 183 months months)) n +nding +nding respo responde ndents nts guilt guilt', ', the Sandiganba'an opined that9 1 a3 an' person reading the subect checboo entr' &ould come to the conclusion that a chec in the amount o% P2,000,000)00 &as issued to the Sandiganba'an in e*change %or the latter.s issuance o% a T5", thereb' degrading its integrit' and honor: 1 b3 $tt') !oin, Jr) caused the creation o% the said entr entr' ' in comp compla lain inan ant. t.s s chec checb boo oo &hic &hich h as test testi+ i+ed ed upon upon b' comp compla lain inan ant.s t.s boo boo eepe eeper, r, ;esi ;eside deri ria a ;) Casa Casas, s, &as &as the the pro pro*ima *imate te caus cause e ther thereo eo%: %: and and 1 c3 circumstantial evidence sho&ed that $tt') !abastilla conspired &ith $tt') !oin, Jr) in causing such contemptuous entr', considering, inter alia, that the %ormer &as the counsel &ho applied %or a T5" and that he admitted receipt o% the proceeds o% the chec, although allegedl' %or legal %ees and that Sheris #anuel Gregorio #endo4a Torio Torio and 5omulo C)
&as onl' eected(served upon pa'ment o% the corresponding %ees) =ollo&ing the promulgation o% the Sandiganba'an.s #a' 7, 2006 5esolution, the complainant instituted the instant complaint) n his de%ense, $tt') !oin, Jr) maintained that he did not per%orm acts violative o% the Code o% Pro%essional 5esponsibilit' 1CP53, insisting that the Sandiganba'an.s +ndings in the indirect contempt case &ere erroneous and contrar' to the pertinent evidence and records) T&' IP() R'por* +- R'o//'-+*io n a 5eport and 5ecommendation dated Januar' 2, 20>, the 3 'ear) Ho&ever, $tt') !abastilla &as absolved %rom an' administrative liabilit') Similar to the Sandiganba'an, the
The ? &ith modi+cation increasing the recommended period o% suspension %rom the practice o% la& to three 13 'ears) ISSUE$ @hether or not respondents violated the canons o% Code o% Pro%essional 5esponsibilit') HELD$ Aes) $s members o% the
This is the ver' thrust o% Canon >> o% the CP5, &hich provides that /aD la&'er shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to udicial oBcers and should insist on similar conduct b' others)/ Hence, la&'ers &ho are remiss in per%orming such s&orn dut' violate the a%oresaid Canon >>, and as such, should be held administrativel' liable and penali4ed accordingl', as in this case)
=urthermore, Canon 7 o% the CP5 commands ever' la&'er to /at all times uphold the integrit' and dignit' o% the legal pro%ession/ %or the strength o% the legal pro%ession lies in the dignit' and integrit' o% its members) t is ever' la&'er.s dut' to maintain the high regard to the pro%ession b' sta'ing true to his oath and eeping his actions be'ond reproach) t must be reiterated that as an oBcer o% the court, it is a la&'er.s s&orn and moral dut' to help build and not destro' unnecessaril' that high esteem and regard to&ards the courts so essential to the proper administration o% ustice: as acts and(or omissions emanating %rom la&'ers &hich tend to undermine the udicial edi+ce is disastrous to the continuit' o% the government and to the attainment o% the liberties o% the people) Thus, all la&'ers should be bound not onl' to sa%eguard the good name o% the legal pro%ession, but also to eep inviolable the honor, prestige, and reputation o% the udiciar') n this case, respondents compromised the integrit' o% the udiciar' b' maliciousl' imputing corrupt motives against the Sandiganba'an through the subect checboo entr') Clearl', respondents also violated Canon 7 o% the CP5 and, thus, should be held administrativel' liable there%or) $nent the proper penalt' to be meted to respondents, urisprudence provides that in similar cases &here la&'ers per%orm acts &hich tend to erode the public con+dence in the courts, put the courts in a bad light, and bring the ustice s'stem into disrepute, the Court imposed upon them the penalt' o% suspension %rom the practice o% la&) nder the %oregoing circumstances, the Court imposes upon $tt') !abastilla the penalt' o% suspension %rom the practice o% la& %or a period o% one 1>3 'ear %or his complicit' in the maing o% the subect checboo entr') "n the other hand, since $tt') !oin, Jr) &as the one directl' responsible %or the maing o% the subect checboo entr', the Court deems it appropriate to impose upon him the graver penalt' o% suspension %rom the practice o% la& %or a period o% three 13 'ears, as recommended b' the > o% the Code o% Pro%essional 5esponsibilit') $ccordingl', $tt') !uis F) !oin, Jr) is hereb' SUSPENDED %rom the practice o% la& %or a period o% three 13 'ears, &hile $tt') Siini C) !abastilla is hereb' SUSPENDED %rom the practice o% la& %or a period o% one 1>3 'ear, eective upon the receipt o% this ;ecision, &ith a stern &arning that a repetition o% the same or similar acts &ill be dealt &ith more
severel') !et copies o% this ;ecision be attached to respondents. personal record as members o% the
