In PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation v. Atty. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Labastilla, the Supreme Court held lawyers accountable for actions that undermine the integrity of the judiciary. The Court found both attorneys guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for insinuating that the Sandiganbayan received a bribe. This case underscores the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and their duty to uphold the honor of the courts.

When Duty Falters: Attorneys, Allegations, and the Court’s Honor

This case arose from a complaint filed by PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation against Attys. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Sikini C. Labastilla. The core issue stemmed from an entry in PHILCOMSAT’s checkbook stub that read “Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case – P2,000,000.” This entry surfaced during a Senate investigation into anomalies within the PHILCOMSAT group of companies. The Sandiganbayan, upon learning of this entry, initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the attorneys, among others. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether these attorneys should be held administratively liable for conduct that allegedly undermined the judiciary’s integrity.

The Sandiganbayan had previously found both attorneys guilty of indirect contempt, imposing fines and imprisonment. The court reasoned that the checkbook entry implied a bribe, thereby degrading the Sandiganbayan’s honor. Atty. Lokin, Jr. was identified as the one who caused the creation of the entry, while Atty. Labastilla was implicated through circumstantial evidence, including his role as counsel for the TRO application and his receipt of the check proceeds. Following the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, PHILCOMSAT filed the administrative complaint that reached the Supreme Court.

Atty. Lokin, Jr. defended himself by arguing that the Sandiganbayan’s findings were erroneous and that an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. Atty. Labastilla echoed the prematurity argument due to the pending appeal and denied any involvement in the checkbook entry. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Lokin, Jr. administratively liable and recommended a one-year suspension. However, Atty. Labastilla was absolved. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but increased Atty. Lokin, Jr.’s suspension to three years.

The Supreme Court disagreed in part with the IBP’s findings. While it concurred with the liability of Atty. Lokin, Jr., it also found Atty. Labastilla culpable. The Court emphasized that administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from criminal cases, and a finding of guilt in one does not necessarily dictate the outcome in the other. The Court cited Spouses Saunders v. Pagano-Calde, stating:

[A]dministrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that Atty. Labastilla’s appeal of the Sandiganbayan ruling had already been denied with finality. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s findings regarding the attorneys’ contumacious acts were conclusive. The Court agreed that the checkbook entry contained a contumacious imputation against the Sandiganbayan and that Atty. Lokin, Jr. was responsible for its creation. Desideria D. Casas, PHILCOMSAT’s bookkeeper, testified that Atty. Lokin, Jr. requested the check’s issuance and instructed her to write the entry.

This approach contrasts with the IBP’s assessment, the Court found sufficient evidence to implicate Atty. Labastilla. The Court noted that he was the external counsel who applied for the TRO, he admitted to receiving the check proceeds, and the TRO’s issuance coincided with the check’s date. Moreover, Atty. Labastilla failed to properly account for the P2,000,000.00 he claimed as legal fees. The Court referenced General Milling Corporation v. Casio, reminding that “[a] party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence.”

As lawyers and officers of the court, respondents have a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. The Court referred to Canon 11 of the CPR, which states 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.” By creating the checkbook entry, the Court reasoned, the respondents failed in this duty. The Court also invoked Canon 7 of the CPR, which commands lawyers to “at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.” The Court said: “It is every lawyer’s duty to maintain the high regard to the profession by staying true to his oath and keeping his actions beyond reproach.”

Considering these violations, the Court imposed sanctions. Citing Baculi v. Battung, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. Atty. Lokin, Jr., as the one directly responsible for the entry, was suspended for three years. Atty. Labastilla, for his complicity, was suspended for one year. The Court held them accountable for their actions, underscoring the paramount importance of preserving the judiciary’s integrity.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Attys. Lokin, Jr. and Labastilla should be held administratively liable for creating a checkbook entry that insinuated a bribe to the Sandiganbayan. This implicated Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, related to upholding the integrity of the legal profession and showing respect to the courts.
What did the checkbook entry say?	The checkbook entry stated: “Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case – P2,000,000.” This implied that a payment was made to the Sandiganbayan in exchange for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
What was the Sandiganbayan’s role in this case?	The Sandiganbayan initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the attorneys after learning about the checkbook entry. The court found them guilty of contempt for undermining its integrity.
What was the IBP’s recommendation?	The IBP initially recommended a one-year suspension for Atty. Lokin, Jr. and absolved Atty. Labastilla. However, the IBP Board of Governors later increased Atty. Lokin, Jr.’s suspension to three years.
How did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court found both attorneys guilty of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It suspended Atty. Lokin, Jr. for three years and Atty. Labastilla for one year.
Why was Atty. Labastilla also found liable?	Despite the IBP’s initial absolution, the Supreme Court found Atty. Labastilla complicit based on his role as counsel for the TRO application, his receipt of the check proceeds, and the timing of the TRO’s issuance. These factors suggested his involvement in the creation of the contumacious checkbook entry.
What are Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?	Canon 7 requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Canon 11 mandates lawyers to observe and maintain respect due to the courts and judicial officers.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the high ethical standards expected of lawyers and their duty to protect the judiciary’s integrity. It underscores that lawyers will be held accountable for actions that undermine the public’s confidence in the courts.

This case serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities that accompany the legal profession. Lawyers must act with integrity and respect for the courts to maintain public trust in the justice system. Their actions must be beyond reproach, as even the appearance of impropriety can have severe consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation v. Atty. Lokin, Jr., A.C. No. 11139, April 19, 2016