In the instant case, Fernando Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). Atty. Guico’s legal services included handling a complaint for illegal dismissal brought against CVC (NLRC Case No. RAB-III-08-9261-05 entitled Kilusan ng Manggagawang Makabayan (KMM) Katipunan CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Chapter, Ladivico Adriano, et al. v. CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corp. and Fernando Chu). On September 7, 2006, Labor Arbiter Herminio V. Suelo rendered a decision adverse to CVC. Atty. Guico filed a timely appeal in behalf of CVC.
According to Chu, during a
Christmas party held on December 5, 2006 at Atty. Guico’s residence in
Commonwealth, Quezon City, Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial
amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to
insure a favorable decision. Chu called Atty. Guico to inform him that he had
raised P300,000.00 for the purpose. Atty. Guico told him to proceed to his
office at No. 48 Times Street, Quezon City, and togive the money to his
assistant, Reynaldo (Nardo) Manahan. Chu complied, and later on called Atty.
Guico to confirm that he had delivered the money to Nardo. Subsequently, Atty.
Guico instructed Chu to meet him on July 5, 2007 at the UCC Coffee Shop on T.
Morato Street, Quezon City. At the UCC Coffee Shop, Atty. Guico handed Chu a
copy of an alleged draft decision of the NLRC in favor of CVC.The draft
decision was printed on the dorsal portion of used paper apparently emanating
from the office of Atty. Guico. On that occasion, the latter told Chu to raise
another P300,000.00 to encourage the NLRC Commissioner to issue the decision.
But Chu could only produce P280,000.00, which he brought to Atty. Guico’s
office on July 10, 2007 accompanied by his son, Christopher Chu, and one Bonifacio
Elipane. However, it was Nardo who received the amount without issuing any
receipt.
Chu followed up on the status of
the CVC case with Atty. Guico in December 2007. However, Atty. Guico referred
him to Nardo who in turn said that he would only know the status after
Christmas. On January 11, 2008, Chu again called Nardo, who invited him to
lunch at the Ihaw Balot Plaza in Quezon City. Once there, Chu asked Nardo if
the NLRC Commissioner had accepted the money, but Nardo replied in the negative
and simply told Chu to wait. Nardo assured that the money was still with Atty.
Guico who would return it should the NLRC Commissioner not accept it.
On January 19, 2009, the NLRC
promulgated a decision adverse to CVC. Chu confronted Atty. Guico, who in turn
referred Chu to Nardo for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. After the
denial of the motion for reconsideration, Atty. Guico caused the preparation
and filing of an appeal in the Court of Appeals. Finally, Chu terminated Atty.
Guico as legal counsel on May 25, 2009.
In his position paper, Atty.
Guico described the administrative complaint as replete with lies and
inconsistencies, and insisted that the charge was only meant for harassment. He
denied demanding and receiving money from Chu, a denial that Nardo corroborated
with his own affidavit. He further denied handing to Chu a draft decision
printed on used paper emanating from his office, surmising that the used paper
must have been among those freely lying around in his office that had been
pilfered by Chu’s witnesses in the criminal complaint he had handled for Chu.
The IBP Commissioner recommended
the disbarment of Atty. Guico. The IBP Board of Governors modified the said
recommendation to three years suspension from practicing law.
Issue to be resolved by the Court.
Whether or not Atty Guico
committed an act that is a ground for his disbarment.
 |
| image from: lawmrh.wordpress.com |
The Supreme Court's Decision.
Yes, the Court finds Atty.
Guico guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Rule 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to
guarantee a favorable decision from the NLRC.The Court reiterated the Lawyer’s oath and the codal provision violated by Atty. Guico;
In taking the Lawyer’s Oath, Atty. Guico bound himself to:x x x maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; x x x support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; x x x do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x x x delay no man for money or malice x x x. The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, to wit:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Interestingly enough, the Court decided
against Atty. Guico because, among other, he made only a general denial of the accusation
against him (the accusation that the supposed paper used for the draft decision
came from his office).
The Supreme Court stated;
The testimony of Chu, and the circumstances narrated by Chu and his witnesses, especially the act of Atty. Guico of presenting to Chu the supposed draft decision that had been printed on used paper emanating from Atty. Guico’s office, sufficed to confirm that he had committed the imputed gross misconduct by demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to obtain a favorable decision. Atty. Guico offered only his general denial of the allegations in his defense, but such denial did not overcome the affirmative testimony of Chu. We cannot but conclude that the production of the draft decision by Atty. Guico was intended to motivate Chu to raise money to ensure the chances of obtaining the favorable result in the labor case. As such, Chu discharged his burden of proof as the complainant to establish his complaint against Atty. Guico. In this administrative case, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
We should also take note here that lack of receipts does not always result to a decision not in favor of the complainant. In the instant case, the Court considered the paper used in making the fake decision given to Chu and the statement of the respondent-lawyer himself. This is a wake-up call for those people who do not issue receipts in making transactions.
The Supreme Court continued;
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Ending the decision, the Supreme
Court gave the ultimate punishment for such violation – disbarment. It stated;
ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JOSE S. GUICO, JR. GUILTY of the violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him from membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Read the full case here;
No comments:
Post a Comment