Galindez vs. Susbilla-De Vera

Facts:

Sometime in July 2008, Galindez approached De Vera, her school batch mate, to inquire where any petition for the adoption of her nephew and niece had already been filed, but De-Vera could not locate any adoption petition involving the intended adoptees in the Family Court, De Vera volunteered to handle the process by coordinating with a lawyer to fast track the petition. De Vera told her that the cost for the adoption process would be 130k half of the down payment but Galindez could raise only 20k as down payment and that she had paid De-Vera. After a week, De Vera called her for the balance of the down payment, that she had willingly given the balance on two separate occasions. Then a week later De Vera had handed her receipt for the full amount of 65k, with assurance that everything would be handled well. Galindez visited De Vera’s office to ask the latter to facilitate a meeting but instead she brought her to the Family Court, and find out it had been in fact completely processed, because of doubt, Galindez went to the legal secretary of the Farinas law office that Galindez found out that adoption had already been completed, that because of that information she had demanded from De Vera to return the money.

Issue:Whether or not Galindez is guilty of Gross Misconduct.

Ruling:Sec. 1 of the Code of Conduct or Court Personnel has enjoined all Court personnel from

soliciting or accepting any gift, favor or benefit based on any or explicit understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall influence their official actions.

De Vera thus violated her sacred oaths as court employee to serve the Judiciary with utmost loyalty and to preserve the integrity and reputation of the Institution dispensing justice to all. Her violation was made worse by her committing it in exchange for easy money. She was guilty of corruption, she compounded by disobeying the order of the Court requiring her to explain herself.

Wherefore, De Vera is guilty of Gross Misconduct and dismissed her from the service effective immediately with prejudice to her employment in the Government including GOCC and with forfeiture of all retirement benefit except leave credits and order De Vera to return Galindez the amount of 65k.

Barcelona vs. Lim and Tan[G.r. no. 189171, June 3, 2014]

Facts:On August 14, 200, respondent business man, the owner of Top Gun Billiard (TGP),

filed a sworn statement with the NBI, Lim claimed as follows his employees Ditan and Ubante, were influenced by petitioner to file a labor complaint against Lim, and petitioner then on NLRC officer, demanded 20k for the settlement of the labor case filed against Lim. The NBI organized an entrapment operation against petitioner.

On August 16, 2000, Lim informed the NBI that petitioner would drop by TGP around 7:00 pm expecting to receive the 20k, petitioner was demanding from him, otherwise petitioner would order that TGP be closed, after Lim handed the marked bulls, petitioner began counting them. The latter was arrested by the NBI right when he was about to put the money in his bag.

It was further discovered that while the inquest paper were being prepared by the NBI, Tan owner of a glass supply, had filed a similar extortion complaint against petitioner. The latter supposedly asked him to pay 15k in exchanged for the settlement of a fabricated case.

Report of the circumstances leading to the arrest and filing of the complaints against petitioner were submitted by Tan and Lim to Chairperson Señeres, copies of the documentary evidence against petitioner were likewise enclosed to the Chairperson.

Petitioner appealed to the CSC. In his appeal Memorandum, he presented his side of the story. He claimed to have visited Lim’s establishment to play. When Lims’ employee discovered that petitioner worked for the NLRC they told him of their employer labor law violations. One day, before leaving the said establishment, he discovered that his cellular and cigarette were no longer where he left them, the guard on duty informed him that a certain Gumban had stolen it, and then petitioner filed a complaint for theft, swindling and violation of city ordinance against Lim and 3 of the latter employees and friends. Petitioner claims that on August 16, 2000, the day of the alleged entrapment he received a call from Lim. The person who had stolen petitioner’s cell phone was supposedly willing to return it at 7:00pm at Lims’ establishment when petitioner arrived, Lim approached petitioner and informed him that the thief could no longer return the phone, instead to pay the value of the phone and entrust the money to Lim. Petitioner refused to receive and count the money instead Lim inserted the cash into the open pocket of the formers shoulder bag. Just when petitioner was about to pull out the money and throw it back to Lim, the agents appeared and arrested petitioner.

Issue:Whether or not Barcelona is administratively liable for corrupt activity, deceit and gross

misconduct.

Ruling:Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not

counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system extortion by a gov’t lawyer an outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding

grave sanctions. With the high standard of integrity is demanded of a gov’t lawyer as compared to a private practitioner because the delinquency of a gov’t lawyer erodes the people’s trust and confidence in the gov’t.

Rule 1.03 of the same Code states that a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motives or interest encourage any suit ir proceeding or delay any means cause.

As an Attorney IV of the NLRC, petitioner failed to observe prudence by hanging out and playing in the billiard hall, by so doing, he exposed himself unnecessarily to certain elements and situation which could compromise his official position and his statues as lawyer.

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, petitioner miserably failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal profession.

The Court is convinced that the evidence against petitioner is clear and convincing. He is administratively liable for corrupt activity, deceit and gross misconduct. As correctly held by the IBP, he should not only be suspended from law but disbarred.