Philcomsat V Lokin Ac 11139
Philcomsat V Lokin Ac 11139
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
For the Court's resolution is a Complaint[1] dated August 20, 2009
filed by complainant PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation,
represented by Erlinda I. Bildner[2] (complainant), against
respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. (Atty. Lokin, Jr.) and Atty. Sikini
C. Labastilla (Atty. Labastilla; collectively, respondents) before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), praying for the disbarment of respondents for insinuating that
the Sandiganbayan received the amount of P2,000,000.00 in
exchange for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The Facts
In his defense, Atty. Lokin, Jr. maintained that he did not perform
acts violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
insisting that the Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect contempt
case were erroneous and contrary to the pertinent evidence and
records. He likewise pointed out that the Sandiganbayan ruling was
appealed - albeit not by him but by Atty. Labastilla - to the Court, i.e.,
G.R. No. 187699,[11] which appeal remains unresolved. Therefore, it
cannot be the basis for his administrative liability.[12]
For his part, Atty. Labastilla harped on the fact that an appeal
questioning the Sandiganbayan ruling is still pending before the
Court; thus, it was premature to file an administrative complaint
against him. He further maintained that he had no participation in
the creation of the subject checkbook entry and, even if he had any
such participation, there was nothing contemptuous about it.[13]
As will be explained hereunder, the Court: (a) concurs with the IBP's
findings as to Atty. Lokin, Jr.'s administrative liability; and (b)
disagrees with the IBP's recommendation to absolve Atty. Labastilla
from administrative liability.
At the outset, the Court notes that the indirect contempt case
originally filed before the Sandiganbayan is in the nature of a criminal
contempt.[21] "[C]riminal contempt is conduct that is directed against
the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is
an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring
the court into disrespute or disrespect."[22] "[C]riminal contempt,
being directed against the dignity and authority of the court, is an
offense against organized society and, in addition, is also held to be
an offense against public justice which raises an issue between the
public and the accused, and the proceedings to punish it are
punitive."[23]
However, the Court does not agree with the IBP's finding that Atty.
Labastilla could not reasonably be implicated in the making of the
subject checkbook entry. The Court is more inclined to concur with
the Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect contempt case that Atty.
Labastilla also had a hand, direct or indirect, in the creation of the
subject checkbook entry in light of the following circumstances: (a) he
was complainant's external counsel who applied for the TRO in the
POTC case; (b) he admitted receipt of the proceeds of the check in the
amount of P2,000,000.00, although allegedly for legal fees but with
no supporting evidence therefor;[34] (c) the TRO was only
effected/served upon payment of the corresponding fees per the
testimonies of Sheriffs Manuel Gregorio Mendoza Torio and Romulo
C. Barrozo of the Sandiganbayan;[35] and (d) the TRO and the
aforesaid check were both dated September 23, 2005, thereby
establishing an unmistakeable connection between the TRO and the
check.[36] Moreover, and as correctly pointed out by complainant,
while Atty. Labastilla claims that he received the amount of
P2,000,000.00 as payment for his legal fees, he failed to properly
account the aforesaid amount.[37] In addition, complainant's summary
of legal fees paid to Atty. Labastilla did not reflect the P2,000,000.00
check which he purportedly received as legal fees.[38] Therefore, Atty.
Labastilla should also be held administratively liable for his
complicity in the making of the subject checkbook entry.
As members of the Bar, respondents should not perform acts that
would tend to undermine and/or denigrate the integrity of the courts,
such as the subject checkbook entry which contumaciously imputed
corruption against the Sandiganbayan. It is their sworn duty as
lawyers and officers of the court to uphold the dignity and authority
of the courts. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; without this guarantee, the institution would be
resting on very shaky foundations.[39] This is the very thrust of Canon
11 of the CPR, which provides that "[a] lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others." Hence, lawyers who are
remiss in performing such sworn duty violate the aforesaid Canon 11,
and as such, should be held administratively liable and penalized
accordingly, as in this case.
SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
misarranged.)
[3] Id.
Division)."
See Answer dated January 8, 2010; rollo, Vol. I, pp. 540-566. See
[13]
Andres.
SCRA 623, 637, citing People v. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, 999 (1995).
[23] Id.
[24]See Bengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No, 6368, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA
8, 19, citing Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pools, Inc. v. Naldoza,
374 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
[33] See rollo. Vol. II, p. 148; see rollo. Vol. I, pp. 713-714.
"A party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with
[34]
See Francia v. Abdon, A.C. No. 10031, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA
[40]
341, 354.