Atty. Catalan filed multiple causes of action against Atty. Silvosa. The first was that Atty. Silvosa appeared as private counsel in a case where he previously acted as public prosecutor, violating legal ethics rules. Second, Atty. Silvosa allegedly attempted to bribe a prosecutor to reduce charges in a case involving Atty. Catalan's brother. Third, Atty. Silvosa had been convicted of direct bribery for demanding money in exchange for dismissing a homicide case. The Supreme Court ruled disbarment was warranted because Atty. Silvosa violated rules on conflict of interest, attempted bribery was shown, and his bribery conviction was grounds for disbarment under the law.
Atty. Catalan filed multiple causes of action against Atty. Silvosa. The first was that Atty. Silvosa appeared as private counsel in a case where he previously acted as public prosecutor, violating legal ethics rules. Second, Atty. Silvosa allegedly attempted to bribe a prosecutor to reduce charges in a case involving Atty. Catalan's brother. Third, Atty. Silvosa had been convicted of direct bribery for demanding money in exchange for dismissing a homicide case. The Supreme Court ruled disbarment was warranted because Atty. Silvosa violated rules on conflict of interest, attempted bribery was shown, and his bribery conviction was grounds for disbarment under the law.
Atty. Catalan filed multiple causes of action against Atty. Silvosa. The first was that Atty. Silvosa appeared as private counsel in a case where he previously acted as public prosecutor, violating legal ethics rules. Second, Atty. Silvosa allegedly attempted to bribe a prosecutor to reduce charges in a case involving Atty. Catalan's brother. Third, Atty. Silvosa had been convicted of direct bribery for demanding money in exchange for dismissing a homicide case. The Supreme Court ruled disbarment was warranted because Atty. Silvosa violated rules on conflict of interest, attempted bribery was shown, and his bribery conviction was grounds for disbarment under the law.
ATTY. POLICARPIO I. CATALAN, JR. vs. ATTY. JOSELITO M.
SILVOSA FACTS: Atty. Silvosa appeared as public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-00 where Atty. Catalan was one of the private complainants. Atty. Catalan took issue with Atty. Silvosa’s manner of prosecuting the case and requested the Provincial Prosecutor to relieve Atty. Silvosa. In his first cause of action, Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously appeared as public prosecutor, hence violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Catalan also alleged that, apart from the fact that Atty. Silvosa and the accused are relatives and have the same middle name, Atty. Silvosa displayed manifest bias in the accused’s favor. In his second cause of action, Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio testified that, while still a public prosecutor at the time, Atty. Silvosa offered her P30,000 to reconsider the charge of frustrated murder instead of less serious physical injuries in a case where Atty. Catalan’s brother was a respondent. Finally, in the third cause of action, Atty. Catalan presented the Sandiganbayan’s decision in Criminal Case No. 27776, convicting Atty. Silvosa of direct bribery for having demanded P15,000 for the dismissal of a homicide case and for the release of said accused Arsenio Cadinas despite the execution of an affidavit of desistance of the complainant in said case. ISSUE: Whether or not the acts constitute valid grounds to warrant disbarment. RULING: YES. First, when Atty. Silvosa entered his appearance on the Motion to Post Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.” This stern rule is designed not alone to prevent the dishonest practitioner from fraudulent conduct, but as well to protect the honest lawyer from unfounded suspicion of unprofessional practice. Second, the records showed that Atty. Silvosa made an attempt to bribe Pros. Toribio when she executed her affidavit a day after the failed bribery attempt and had it notarized. Atty. Silvosa failed to overcome the evidence against him and show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. Third, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Atty. Silvosa’s final conviction of the crime of direct bribery clearly falls under one of the grounds for disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. Silvosa’s conviction of the crime.
Case Digest Basic Legal Ethics Subject in The Matter of The IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1) (A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978)