The Supreme Court found Atty. Oliver I. Santos administratively liable for two violations of simple misconduct and ordered him to pay a fine of PHP 35,000.00 for each offense. The Court held him responsible for making a false representation to the trial court and for failing to attend a scheduled hearing in violation of a subpoena.
The Case
The case arose from Criminal Case No. 5975, where Stephen Michael Picciotto was the accused for violation of Section 5(a), in relation to Section 6(a)(1), of Republic Act No. 9262. A Hold Departure Order (HDO) dated June 2, 2022 was issued against him for being a flight-risk individual.
Through his counsel, Atty. Santos, Picciotto filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Allow Accused to Travel Outside the Philippines from June 18 to 24, 2022. The motion was denied through an Order dated June 16, 2022.
Both Picciotto and Atty. Santos attended the June 30, 2022 pre-trial conference, the September 15, 2022 presentation of prosecution evidence, and the September 22, 2022 continuation. During the pre-trial on June 30, 2022, and again during the hearings on September 15 and 22, 2022, they were asked whether Picciotto had departed from the Philippines, to which they answered in the negative.
In the afternoon of September 22, 2022, the trial court received a Manifestation from the Bureau of Immigration inquiring whether the June 16, 2022 Order denying Picciotto's motion superseded a June 13, 2022 Order allowing him to travel abroad. The June 13, 2022 Order bore the forged signature of Judge Orquiola-Moldez.
The following day, Atty. Santos asked Picciotto about the matter, and Picciotto admitted he had indeed travelled. Picciotto averred in his Affidavit that he was not the author of the falsified Order, attributing the act to one Chris Lopez, whom he met through a Facebook Group Page named "Immigration Help." Atty. Santos disavowed any knowledge of the transaction between his client and Lopez.
By Judgment dated November 18, 2022, the trial court found both Atty. Santos and Picciotto guilty of indirect contempt, with the matter forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action against Atty. Santos.
The Issue
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Santos should be held administratively liable for his conduct in connection with his client's violation of the HDO and his failure to comply with the trial court's subpoena.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that Atty. Santos's false response to Judge Orquiola-Moldez's direct inquiry regarding Picciotto's compliance with the HDO constitutes an affirmative act of misrepresentation that misled the trial court and tended to undermine the administration of justice. His false representation constitutes simple misconduct under Canon II, Sections 1, 11, and 12 of the CPRA.
The Court further found that his unjustified failure to comply with the duly served subpoena requiring his attendance at the September 30, 2022 hearing constitutes another count of simple misconduct under Canon III, Section 2 of the CPRA.
In its disposition, the Court held: "ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Atty. Oliver I. Santos administratively LIABLE for two violations of simple misconduct under: (1) Canon II, Sections 1, 11, and 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability; and (2) Canon III, Section 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability."
He was ordered to pay a fine of PHP 35,000.00 each payable within three months from receipt of the Decision, directed to submit a manifestation of compliance with proof of payment, and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.
By the Numbers
- A.C. No. 13767
- HDO dated June 2, 2022
- Order denying travel motion dated June 16, 2022
- Forged Order dated June 13, 2022
- Hearing dates: June 30, 2022; September 15, 2022; September 22, 2022; September 30, 2022
- Trial court Judgment dated November 18, 2022
- Fine of PHP 35,000.00 for each of two offenses
- Simple misconduct penalty range under CPRA: fine of PHP 35,000.00 to PHP 100,000.00
The Court's Reasoning
The Court emphasized that as officers of the court, lawyers must uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, while representing and serving their clients. It cited David v. Rongcal, et al., noting that lawyers cannot hide under the guise of advocating the rights of their client, and that their obligations to society, to the court, and to the legal profession take precedence over their obligations to their clients.
The Court noted that the CPRA prohibits lawyers from engaging in deceitful conduct such as making false or misleading statements, and imposes upon them the duty to report any dishonest or fraudulent act in connection with a matter they are handling. It found that despite being aware of Picciotto's departure in defiance of the HDO, Atty. Santos later denied any knowledge of it when questioned by the trial court.
The Court explained that simple misconduct, or such misconduct without the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, is considered a less serious offense under the CPRA. Under Canon VI, Section 40 of the CPRA, if a respondent is liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in A.C. No. 13767, penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.