AAA v. Atty.

De Los Reyes

SECTION 28. Dignified government service. — Lawyers in government service shall

observe the standard of conduct under this Code, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and other related laws and issuances in
the performance of their duties.
Any violation of the Code by lawyers in government service shall be subject to
disciplinary action, separate and distinct from liability under pertinent laws or rules.

FACTS:
 AAA was hired as secretary to Atty. De Los Reyes, then VP of the Legal and
Administrative Group of National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. (NHMFC).
 Complainant became a permanent employee with a plantilla position, she later
learned that respondent facilitated her rapid promotion soon after becoming
secretary.
 Sometime after, respondent offered to take her home, which became a daily
routine even after she moved residence.
 A year after, AAA became uncomfortable when she realized that Atty. Delos
Reyes was becoming overly possessive and demanding (i.e., she could not
refuse his offer to bring her home; her telephone calls were monitored, and she
was called during office hours to listen to his personal stories).
 AAA tried to avoid him but was met with verbal abuse toward her.
 One instance, she refused his offer to take her home but got angry and dragged
her to the parking area, forcing her inside the vehicle. He slapped her twice while
driving, and she became hysterical.
 She informed Atty. Arzaga of what happened and her intention to resign. AAA
was persuaded not to resign but to transfer to a different office. However, she
was told to return as the respondent’s private secretary.
 Due to her financial position, AAA could not resign. Atty. De Los Reyes exploited
her situation and overpowered her resistance by leaving her with no choice but to
succumb to his advances or lose her job.
 Even after several attempts to be assigned to a different unit, complainant always
ended up being reassigned under Atty. De Los Reyes. And the arrangement
between the two persisted even if she changed residences.
 When complainant again attempted to avoid communicating and seeing
respondent, Atty. De Los Reyes turned his sight on a close colleague of
complainant and threatened to fire him, prompting complainant to plead with him
and spare his friends.
 In her attempt to plead, she met him outside their office and insisted they go back
to the office, but she refused and ran away from Atty. De Los Reyes, then Atty.
De Los Reyes shouted Mahal Kita in public to the embarrassment of
complainant.
 The IBP-CBD found respondent guilty of violating Rules 1.01 and recommended
the penalty of one (1) year suspension, and the Commissioner took note that
there was no indication that complainant was not telling the truth, the
commissioner took note of the behavior and testimony of the complainant saying
 that although she was hesitant in categorizing numerous sexual intercourse that
occurred
 The IBP-BOG adopted the findings but modified the penalty to indefinite
suspension.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Atty. De Los Reyes committed acts amounting to sexual
harassment and gross immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which would warrant his disbarment.

RULING:
The Supreme Court finds Atty. De Los Reyes guilty of gross immoral conduct and
violated Rules 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of CPR, ordering his
DISBARMENT.
 The Court emphasized that possession of good moral character is a continuing
requirement to retain membership in the legal profession, binding lawyers to
observe the highest degree of morality.
 Citing Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit, the Court stated that any errant behavior, be it in
public or private activities, showing deficiency in moral character, honesty,
probity, or good demeanor, warrants suspension or disbarment. The Court
likewise said that as a member of the bar and officer of the court, it is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must
also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
impression that he is defying those moral standards.
 The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the IBP-CBD and IBP-BOG that the
respondent committed gross immorality in his personal affairs with AAA, showing
his disregard for the Lawyer’s Oath and CPR.
 The Court also took cognizance of the excerpt from AAA’s testimony, asserting
that Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of sextortion because he abused his position or
authority to obtain sexual favors from his subordinate, who could not refuse from
respondent’s demands for fear of losing her job.
 Such sexual exploitation committed by respondent affected his standing and
character as a member of the Bar and officer of the court, and the Court further
said that the legal profession, due to such acts, was placed in disrepute and the
integrity of the administration of justice in peril.
 For Atty. De Los Reyes’ actions showing he lacks a degree of morality required of
him as a lawyer, this warrants him the penalty of disbarment.

IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 28

Aside from the fact that Atty. De Los Reyes is governed by several other laws and code
of conduct as a public official being in government service, he still remains subject to
the disciplinary powers of the Court being a member of the bar. It’s imperative note here
that Atty. De Los Reyes raised the argument of prescription, and the IBP Commissioner
actually said that there is no prescriptive period for grave misconduct in
disbarment proceedings and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Disbarment
proceedings are sui generis. Although it cannot grant relief to a complainant in a civil
case, the Court can still cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of erring members for
the protection of the public and of the courts.
LINSANGAN V. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO

FACTS:
 Complainant alleged that respondent, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie
Labiano, convinced his clients to TRANSFER legal representation.
 Respondent promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on
their claims. To induce them to hire his services, he persistently called them and
sent them text messages.
 In support of these allegations, complainant presented the sworn affidavit of
James Gregorio attesting that Labiano attempted to persuade him to sever his
lawyer-client relations with complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead,
in exchange for a loan of ₱50,000.
 A calling card apparently from respondent was attached in the complaint, to the
refusal of Atty. Tolentino that he knew of Labiano nor did he authorize the printing
and circulation of the calling cards.
 The Commission on Bar Discipline, in its report and recommendations, that Atty.
Toletino indeed encroached on the professional practice of Atty. Linsangan
violating the provision on CPR against solicitation of cases for gain, personally or
through paid agents or brokers—recommending that he be reprimanded.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Tolentino shall be held liable for the acts committed.

RULING:
The Supreme Court orders the suspension of Atty. Tolentino for one (1) year.
 The Court adopted the findings of the IBP-CBD based on the testimonial and
documentary evidence that Atty. Tolentino intruded in the professional practice of
complainant through his paralegal in furtherance of the misconduct violating
several provisions of the CPR.
 In violation of Canon 3, the Court said that allowing a lawyer to advertise his
talent or skills equates to commercializing the practice of law.
 The Supreme Court said that, in Rule 8.03, a lawyer should not steal another
lawyer’s client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service,
good result or reduced fees for his services.
 The Court also took notice of the financial assistance being offered in exchange
of transferring their legal representation. The court said that Labiano’s calling
card contained the phrase "with financial assistance." The phrase was clearly
used to entice clients (who already had representation) to change counsels with
a promise of loans to finance their legal actions. It was used to lure clients away
from their original lawyers and taking advantage of their financial distress and
emotional vulnerability.
 The rule is intended to SAFEGUARD the lawyer’s independence of mind so that
the free exercise of his judgment may not be adversely affected. It seeks to
ensure his undivided attention to the case he is handling as well as his entire
devotion and fidelity to the client’s cause. If the lawyer lends money to the client
in connection with the client’s case, the lawyer acquires an interest in the subject
matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his own recovery rather than that
of his client, or to accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the prejudice of the client in violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to
the client’s cause.