FACTS:
The complaint in this case was filed by PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation against Attorneys Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Sikini C. Labastilla (collectively, respondents). The complaint sought the disbarment of respondents for insinuating that the Sandiganbayan received P2,000,000.00 in exchange for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). The complaint alleged that during a Senate investigation concerning the anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT group of companies, it was discovered that a check issued by complainant in connection with an injunction case against Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) before the Sandiganbayan contained an entry in the checkbook stub which mentioned "Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case - P2,000,000". As a result, the Sandiganbayan motu proprio initiated contempt proceedings against respondents. After due proceedings, the Sandiganbayan found respondents guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced them to pay a fine and imprisonment. The complainant then filed the administrative complaint. The Investigating Commissioner of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Atty. Lokin, Jr. administratively liable but absolved Atty. Labastilla from any liability. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation, but increased the recommended penalty of suspension for Atty. Lokin, Jr. to three (3) years. The issue before the Court is whether or not respondents should be held administratively liable.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the filing of an administrative case against the respondents is premature since their conviction in the criminal case has not attained finality.
-
Whether Atty. Labastilla can be held administratively liable for his alleged involvement in the creation of the subject checkbook entry.
-
The main issue in this case is whether respondents Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla violated Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by making a checkbook entry that imputed corruption against the Sandiganbayan.
RULING:
-
The Court ruled that the filing of an administrative case against the respondents is not premature even if their conviction in the criminal case has not attained finality. A disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action, and a finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Similarly, a lawyer's acquittal in the criminal case does not necessarily exculpate them administratively. Disciplinary proceedings are undertaken solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law.
-
The Court disagreed with the IBP's finding that Atty. Labastilla cannot be reasonably implicated in the creation of the subject checkbook entry. The Court concurred with the Sandiganbayan's findings in the indirect contempt case that Atty. Labastilla had a hand, direct or indirect, in the creation of the entry based on his role as complainant's external counsel who applied for the TRO, his admission of receiving the proceeds of the check, and the absence of supporting evidence for his claim that it was for legal fees.
-
The Supreme Court found Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. and Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla guilty of violating Canons 7 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. was suspended from the practice of law for three years, while Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla was suspended for one year. It was also stated that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
PRINCIPLES:
-
A disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action, and a finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, a lawyer's acquittal in the criminal case does not necessarily exculpate them administratively.
-
Disciplinary proceedings are undertaken solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law.
-
Lawyers should uphold and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. (Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)
-
Lawyers should uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. (Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility)
-
Lawyers should not perform acts that undermine the integrity of the courts or bring the justice system into disrepute.
-
Lawyers have a duty to safeguard the good name of the legal profession and the honor, prestige, and reputation of the judiciary.