Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Catalan Vs Silvosa

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    180 views2 pages
    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.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    catalan vs silvosa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    180 views2 pages

    Catalan Vs Silvosa

    Uploaded by

    Daniela Erika Beredo Inandan
    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.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    A.C. No. 7360. July 24, 2012.

    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.

    You might also like