A privilege burdened with conditions

This is a disbarment case filed by the girlfriend of a lawyer whom we shall name Tessie. She had known Atty. Reyes during their college days and later on reconnected through social media. From then on, she met Atty. Reyes again about the problem of her brother Bert, based in another country who wanted to have his marriage annulled so that he could continue working in said country.

Atty. Reyes promised her that he knew a judge in a province who could issue a judgment of annulment for a fee. So, she contacted her brother Bert who agreed that Atty. Reyes will handle the annulment case for P180,000 payable in two installments of P90,000 upon acceptance and P90,000 upon issuance of the judgment. So, Bert paid P90,000 to Atty. Reyes as first payment of the judge. Thereafter Atty. Reyes handed to Bert a final decision of annulment.

Upon advice of the National Statistics Office, however, it turned out that it had no records of said marriage. Tessie attempted to contact Atty. Reyes but the latter could no longer be found. The whole ordeal caused Tessie and her brother Bert undue stress. So Tessie sent a demand letter to Atty. Reyes demanding the return of the P90,000 plus interest because the decision handed to them was fake and spurious.

Atty. Reyes, for his part, asked Tessie not to file the case yet as he will try to get another genuine decision. Despite the lapse of time, the attempt of Atty. Reyes to do so failed as the decision he obtained was also spurious. He admitted his involvement in the reprehensible practice of perpetuating “annulment packages,” although he denied authorship as he did so only in order to help Tessie and in the process was also scammed.

Upon recommendation of the investigating commissioner, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors adopted the findings with penalty of suspension from the practice of law for five years.

The Supreme Court upheld this ruling of IBP Board of Governors but modified the penalty with disbarment instead of suspension for five years. According to the SC, regardless of the intention of Atty. Reyes of presenting mitigating circumstances, his involvement in the reprehensible practice of perpetuating false or fake marriages besmirched the legal profession to the highest degree by making a mockery of judicial system. He simply violated his sworn oath to be honest and to obey the law and the Constitution.

It also created an impression to the public that the judicial process can be trifled with and undermined. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Fabricating a judicial decision or perpetuating acts leading to such, undeniably comes within the prohibitive acts of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which Atty. Reyes committed. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but a privilege or franchise. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified.

Atty. Reyes, while admitting his infractions, invoked leniency and supplicated that he be unqualifiedly absolved of his liability out of humanitarian reasons. He admitted that his acceptance of the case transgressed the ethical yardstick but pleaded not to be judged on that aspect alone and cited his accolades.

Atty. Reyes admitted having transgressed the sanctity of the legal profession and apologized for it but maintained that he only did so out of his good intention of helping Bert. If he were doing it with malice, then he said that he would have conducted his actions clandestinely and would not have returned Bert’s monies under his own name as sender.

Finally, he also contended his returning the money was not an admission of authorship of the spurious decision.

Unfortunately for Atty. Reyes, his supplication should be denied. It is settled in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of one of its officers.

Its primary objective is public interest, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the court merely calls upon members of the Bar to account for actuations as (officers) of the court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.

For violating the lawyer’s oath and the CPR, Atty. Reyes should be as he is hereby disbarred from the practice of law and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys. (Bartolome vs. Reyes, AC 13226, Oct. 4, 2022).