The Supreme Court, in its En Banc session last Tuesday, February 21, 2023, disbarred a lawyer for his gross violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) when he received money from a client purportedly in exchange for a favorable resolution of a criminal case pending before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office.
The latest action of the Court is a clear indication that the Judiciary is committed to purging the legal profession of erring members.
In a per curiam decision, the Court En Banc also ordered the name of respondent Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.
The Court said that respondent Bautista’s blatant violation of the CPR and his sacrosanct duties as a lawyer warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.
Bautista’s dismissal stemmed from an administrative complaint filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Anthony O. Lim. Lim engaged the services of Bautista to handle the criminal case filed by Lim’s father which was then pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. Lim alleged that Bautista acted as fixer, solicited money from him to influence the decision of the prosecutors, and failed to provide an accounting thereof, among others, in gross violation of the CPR.
Lim claimed he issued checks to Bautista which the former encashed. Lim’s father lost the case despite Bautista’s repeated assurances and the money paid in favor of the respondent and his supposed contacts.
The IBP-CBD recommended that Bautista be disbarred after finding Bautista guilty of Canons 1, 15 to 20 of the CPR, and the Lawyer’s Oath for his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct, making him unfit to practice law.
Concurring with the findings of the IBP-CBD, the Supreme Court held that there was substantial evidence presented to convince the Court that the money was exchanged in consideration of the legal services of Bautista and for the mobilization of the latter’s contacts at the national prosecution service.
It ruled the parties did not dispute the exchange of money between them, citing that the records show that Bautista’s receipt of millions of pesos from the complainant was adequately supported by substantial evidence through Bautista’s own admissions and the checks issued by the complainant amounting to P13.3M, with Bautista indicated as payee.
For these, the Court held the respondent Bautista liable for violations of Canons 15, 17, 18, and 19 of the CPR. Canon 15 states that a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his clients; Canon 17 states that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him; Canon 18 states that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence; while Canon 19 states that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law.
Likewise, the Court found the Bautista guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 of the CPR. Rule 1.01 bars a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct, while Rule 1.02 says a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The Court said that Bautista violated these provisions when he advised and represented to the complainant that the national prosecution service can be influenced and bought.
The Court also ruled that the Bautista violated Rules 16.01 and 16.04 of Canon 16 of the CPR, which mandates a lawyer to account for all the money received from the client. In addition, as admitted by Bautista himself, he loaned P300,000 from the complainant and had already paid the same in full. The Court said this was in violation of Rule
16.04 which considers the lawyer’s act of borrowing money from a client as unethical.
The Court reiterated that the lawyer’s act of influence-peddling for implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system and puts the administration of the justice in a bad light.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the Decision to the Supreme Court website once it receives a copy from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)