The Supreme Court’s decision in A.C. No. 10573 underscores the high ethical standards demanded of lawyers. The Court disbarred Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr. for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Guico was found to have extorted money from his client, Fernando W. Chu, promising a favorable decision from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). This ruling reinforces that attorneys must uphold the law and legal processes, and any deviation from these principles can result in severe penalties, including disbarment.

The Price of Justice: When Legal Counsel Turns Corrupt

This case originated from a disbarment complaint filed by Fernando W. Chu against his former lawyer, Atty. Jose C. Guico, Jr. Chu had retained Atty. Guico to handle labor disputes involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC), including a case for illegal dismissal. Dissatisfied with Atty Guico’s service and the handling of his legal concerns, Chu decided to file a disbarment case against him. Chu accused Atty. Guico of gross misconduct, including demanding and receiving money to ensure a favorable decision from the NLRC. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Guico’s actions constituted a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Chu alleged that Atty. Guico, during a Christmas party, asked him to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to ensure a favorable decision. Chu claimed that he delivered P300,000.00 to Atty. Guico’s assistant and later another P280,000.00. He further stated that Atty. Guico provided him with a copy of an alleged draft decision from the NLRC in favor of CVC. However, the NLRC eventually rendered a decision adverse to CVC, leading Chu to confront Atty. Guico and eventually terminate his services.

In his defense, Atty. Guico denied demanding and receiving money from Chu, characterizing the complaint as harassment. The IBP Commissioner found Atty. Guico had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The IBP Board of Governors initially recommended a three-year suspension, but the Supreme Court ultimately imposed the penalty of disbarment.

The Supreme Court emphasized that in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the attorney’s liability by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The Court found that Chu had presented sufficient evidence, including the draft decision on used paper from Atty. Guico’s office and the testimony of witnesses. The Court addressed Atty. Guico’s defense, stating:

Guico’s attempt to downplay the sourcing of used paper from his office was futile because he did not expressly belie the forthright statement of Chu. All that Atty. Guico stated by way of deflecting the imputation was that the used paper containing the draft decision could have been easily taken from his office by Chu’s witnesses in a criminal case that he had handled for Chu, pointing out that everything in his office, except the filing cabinets and his desk, was “open to the public xxx and just anybody has access to everything found therein.” In our view, therefore, Atty. Guico made the implied admission because he was fully aware that the used paper had unquestionably come from his office.

The Court concluded that the production of the draft decision by Atty. Guico was intended to motivate Chu to provide money to influence the outcome of the labor case. Thus, Chu had met his burden of proof. The Court referenced the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, stating that a lawyer must uphold the law and legal processes. The Court emphasized that violation of this obligation forfeits the lawyer’s privilege to continue membership in the legal profession. Specifically, the Lawyer’s Oath states that the lawyer should “do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; x x x delay no man for money or malice x x x.”

Atty. Guico’s actions were a grave violation of the law, constituting bribery and corruption. The Court emphasized that Atty. Guico’s conduct was a grave misconduct, defined as “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.” The Court found that Atty. Guico had exhibited unworthiness of retaining his membership in the legal profession and cited Samonte v. Abellana:

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are designed to ensure that whoever is granted the privilege to practice law in this country should remain faithful to the Lawyer’s Oath. Only thereby can lawyers preserve their fitness to remain as members of the Law Profession. Any resort to falsehood or deception, including adopting artifices to cover up one’s misdeeds committed against clients and the rest of the trusting public, evinces an unworthiness to continue enjoying the privilege to practice law and highlights the unfitness to remain a member of the Law Profession. It deserves for the guilty lawyer stern disciplinary sanctions.

In addition to disbarment, the Court ordered Atty. Guico to return the P580,000.00 to Chu. The Court clarified that even in administrative proceedings, it is fair and equitable to require the lawyer to restitute the client.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by demanding and receiving money from his client to secure a favorable decision from the NLRC.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Guico guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and ordered his disbarment. The Court also ordered Atty. Guico to return P580,000.00 to Chu.
What evidence did the Court consider in reaching its decision?	The Court considered the affidavits of witnesses, the draft decision provided by Atty. Guico, and Atty. Guico’s implied admission that the draft decision originated from his office.
What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath in this case?	The Lawyer’s Oath is central because it binds attorneys to uphold the law, do no falsehood, and not delay any man for money or malice. Atty. Guico’s actions directly violated these principles.
What constitutes grave misconduct for a lawyer?	Grave misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established rule, a forbidden act, or a dereliction of duty that is willful and implies wrongful intent.
Why was disbarment deemed the appropriate penalty?	Disbarment was deemed appropriate because Atty. Guico’s actions involved bribery, corruption, gross dishonesty, and deceit, which demonstrated his unworthiness to remain a member of the legal profession.
Was it appropriate for the Court to order restitution in a disbarment case?	Yes, the Court found it fair and equitable to order Atty. Guico to return the extorted money to his client, ensuring that the client was not further victimized by the lawyer’s misconduct.
What are the practical implications of this decision for clients?	This decision reinforces that clients should report any unethical behavior by their lawyers, particularly any demands for money to influence legal outcomes, as such actions can lead to severe disciplinary actions against the lawyers.

The disbarment of Atty. Guico serves as a stern warning to members of the legal profession about the consequences of engaging in unlawful and unethical behavior. This case underscores the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal profession and maintaining public trust in the legal system.

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: FERNANDO W. CHU vs. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO, JR., A.C. No. 10573, January 13, 2015