View full case

ATTY. POLICARPIO I. CATALAN v. ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA

FACTS:

Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. filed a complaint against Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa. Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of three causes of action: (1) appearing as counsel for the accused in a case where he previously appeared as prosecutor; (2) bribing Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio for P30,000; and (3) being convicted by the Sandiganbayan for direct bribery in another case. Atty. Catalan alleged that Atty. Silvosa displayed manifest bias in favor of the accused in the case where Atty. Catalan was a private complainant. In his defense, Atty. Silvosa denied any relationship with the accused and claimed that his appearance as counsel was for the purpose of reinstating bail. He also dismissed Pros. Toribio's allegations as unfounded. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Silvosa guilty only of the first cause of action and recommended a penalty of reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors twice modified the recommendation and increased the penalty to two years of suspension. Atty. Silvosa challenged the penalties imposed by the IBP.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  2. Whether Atty. Silvosa attempted to bribe Prosecutor Toribio.

  3. Whether or not the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment.

  4. Whether or not the crime of direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.

RULING:

  1. Atty. Silvosa violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by accepting engagement in a matter in which he had intervened while in government service. He violated Rule 15.03 by representing conflicting interests without written consent and full disclosure of facts. Atty. Silvosa is reprimanded.

  2. Atty. Silvosa attempted to bribe Prosecutor Toribio. His denial and dismissal of the accusation is not enough to overcome the evidence against him. Atty. Silvosa failed to maintain the degree of integrity expected of a lawyer. Delays in filing administrative complaints do not exonerate respondents. The findings in a criminal proceeding are binding in a disbarment proceeding.

  3. Yes, the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. Moral turpitude refers to acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. In this case, the respondent lawyer was convicted of direct bribery, which is a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the disbarment of the respondent is warranted.

  4. Yes, the crime of direct bribery is considered a crime involving moral turpitude. Direct bribery involves a public officer accepting an offer, promise, or gift in exchange for committing some crime or unjust act, or refraining from performing an official duty. This act is considered malicious and a betrayal of the trust reposed on the public officer. Thus, the crime of direct bribery is a clear violation of accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty, and good morals.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A lawyer shall not accept engagement in a matter in which he had intervened while in government service. (Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests without written consent and full disclosure of facts. (Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)

  • An attorney-client relationship exists when an attorney is engaged in his professional capacity, including listening to the client's preliminary statement and giving advice. (Hilado v. David)

  • The prohibition against representing conflicting interests is founded on principles of public policy and aims to prevent fraudulent conduct and protect the honest lawyer from suspicion of unprofessional practice. (Hilado v. David)

  • When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, denial of charges is not enough. The respondent must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. (Unknown)

  • Administrative offenses do not prescribe for members of the bench and bar. (Unknown)

  • The Supreme Court may impose discipline on attorneys, including disbarment, for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath of admission to practice, willful disobedience of a court order, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority.

  • Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment.

  • Moral turpitude refers to acts of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

  • Direct bribery is considered a crime involving moral turpitude.

  • The practice of law is a privilege, and a lawyer must adhere to exacting standards of morality and decency.