Download - CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 1/8
f{nn*,E'*fq,
RePublic
of
the
nrri$1t1es
INTEGRATED
;^-
Oi
TUT
PHILIPPINES
C
ogYtsYfi
S'
o'U
o'n
*lKA
S CJA
L
I
t'lE
Pasig
CitY
ALFREDO
Y.
TO,
ComPlainant,
CBD
CASE
NO.
L4-4237
(ADM
CASE
NO'e7eB)
.VERSUS-
ATTY.
ERNESTO
DAVID
L'
DHLOS
SANTOS'
IlesPondent'
f,
=
= =
=
=
= ===='============='===========-*='=====
= =
=
=f
COMMTSSIONER,S
REPORT
onlsFebruary[ols,theSupremeCourt_officeoftheBarCon{idant
receivec
the
instant cornplaint
ugairrst
herein
Respondent seeking
for
the
investigation
and
disbarment
of
the
Respondent
for
violation
of
R,1e1'01'
Canonl,andRuleT.[s,CanonToftheLawyers,CodeofProfessionatr
RCSPONS'0 'O,,E
COMPLAINANT,S
CAUSE
OF
ACTION
Tlre
Complainant,s
main
allegation
was
that
the
Responclerrt
committed
unlawful,
dishonest
and
deceitful conduct
for
malicior:sly
,,framing
him
up
for
a
crime
he
did
not
commit
causing
him
tremendcus
damage
and
prejudice,
which
acts
show
Respond.ent,s
disregard
of
his
Oath
as
a
LawYer
ComplainantwasaCommissioneroftheProfessionalRegulatiotrs
commission
(PRC)
when
the
alleged
framing-up
transpired'
I{e
wils
charged
for
allegedly
soliciting
and
accepting
the
amount
of
Four
Hundrecl
Thirty
Thousand
Pesos
(PhP
430,000.00)
in
relation
to
a
Corrtract
of
Lease
executed
between
the
PRC
and
the
Responclent'
Consequently'
four
(4)
clifferent
I,formation
were
filed.
against
his
person
for
violation
of
section
3
(b)
of
RA
No.
gllg,section
T
(.1)
of
RA
No'
6713,
Article
210
of
the
Revised
1
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 2/8
penal
Code
and
Arti
cles
293
and,2940f
the
same
code'
all
on
the
basis
of
a
complaint
fired
by
the
NBl-Counter
Terrorism
Division
(NBI-crD)
and
the
Respondent.
The
complaint
was
based
on
the
Respondent's
affidavit
and
the
entrapment
video
which
allegedly
captured'
the
Complainant
accepting
brlbe
money
left
atop
his
desk
by
the
Respondent
himself'
The
complainantwasthereafterd.etainedandsuspendedfromoffice.
The
alleged
bribery
was
rooted
from
the
execution
of
a
contract
of
Lease
between
the
pRC
and
the
Respondent
concerning
a
building
(crLL
Building)
owned
by
the
latter
situated
in
141
Abanao
Extension'
Brgy
j'
Rizal
Monument,
Baguio
City,
leased
by
the
PRC's
Regional
Office'
The
said Contract
was
executed
on\ZNovembet1)lZ'
complainant
alleged
that
he
was
falsely
accused
of
having
a
hand
in
the
negotiations
and
approval
of
the
execution
of
the
said
contract'
He
had
allegedly
threatened
to
intervene
in
the
renewal
of
the
said
Contract
if
the
Respondent
will
not
give
in
to
his
demands
for
monthly
commissions
coming
from
the
monthly
rentals
which
the
Complainant
allegedly
has
the
power
to
hold
the
release
being
a
signatory
to
the
checks
He
had
allegedly
bragged.thathewillbethenextPRCChairpersonandthathestillhaseight
(B)
years
to
serve
once
the
current
Chairrnan
retires'
complainant
claimed
that
he
did
not
intervene
nol.
does
he
has
any
power
to
intervene
in
the
subiect
Contract
as
he
was
not
even
a
member
of
pr{.c_BAC(Bids
and
Awards
committee)
and
that
it
is
highly
inconceivable
that
he
would
extott
or
d.emand
payment/commission
after
the
Contract
of
Lease
was
already
concluded
and
long
implemented
in
July
2012
even
before
it
was signed
in
November
2012'
Lastly,
he
also
asserted
that
the
video
clip
of
the
entrapment
operation
on
5
Decemb
er
2072
proves
his
innocence
instead
of
his
guilt.
He
alleged
that
as
can
be
gleaned
from
the
video,
it
is
obvious
that
he
has
no
knowledge
about
the
renewal
which
theltespondentwastalkingabout.Helikewisehighlightedtheabsenceof
threat
or
intimidation
as
can
be
concluded
from
the
alleged
calm
clemeanor
he
exhibited
during
the
conversation.
He
also
emphasized
that
there
was
no
acceptance
of
the
bribe
money
as
it
was
only
left
atop
his
desk
and
nothing
more
was
done
with
it.
In
fact,
he
was
tested negative for
fluorescent
powcler
which
wele
dusted
on
the
money
bills
placecl
on
his
desk.
,\
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 3/8
Addition
ally,the
Complainant
accused
the
Respondent
of
concocting
facts
stated
in
his
swoln
affidavit-complaint
particularly
par'
8
of
the
Supplemental
Sworn
Affidavit
wherein
the
Respondent
stated
that
the
Complainant
demanded
that
the
money
be
placed
on
his
table'
This'
he
said
does
not
match
with
what
actually transpired
as
can be
derived from
the
entrapment
footage.
Another
Iie,
according
to
the
Complainant''is
that
when
the
Respondent
stated
that
he
promised
that
he
will
surely
attend
to
the
renewal
of
the
Conffact
which
was
also
negated
by
the
video'
The
Complainant
alleged
that
from
the
foregoing'
the
Respondent
violated
Rule
1.01
of
Canon
1
and
Rule
7
'03
of
Canon
7
of
the
Lawyers'
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility'
IntheMandatoryConferenceon:gAugust2014,onllthe
Complainant,
assisted
by
his
counsel,
Attys.
Kristine
R'
Ferrer
and
Julie
Arur
G.
Silva
appeared
hence,
it proceeded
ex-parte'
Thereafter'
the
parties
filed
their
respective
Verified
Position
Papers'
The
Complainant
submitted
the
following
pieces
of
Documentary
Evidence attached to his
Mandatory
conference
Brief:
1.)
Complaint-Affidavit
of
Respondent
dated
3
December
2072;
2.)
Supplemental
Sworn
statement
of
Respondent
dated
5
December
2012;
3.)CopyoftheVideotakenduringtheentrapnrentoperailon
conducted
by
the
NBI
and
the
Respondent
on
5
December
20'L2;
4.)
Lease
Contract
between
the
PRC
and
the
Respondent
dated
12
November
2012;
5.)
PRC
Office
Order
No.
88
dated
8
March2012;
6 )Letter
Request
of
RD
Sison;
7.)
Letter
Reply
of
the
Department
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
(DENR);
B.)
Letter
of
RD
Sison
dated
16
April
2012;
9.)
Cost-Benefit
Analysis
of
RD
Sison;
10.)
Letter
of
Intent
of
Chairperson
Mananzala;
11.)
Results
of
Flourescent
Powder
Test
of
the Complainant;
12.)
Travel
Order
No.
2012-353
datedzT
JuIy
2012;
13.)
PRC
Office
Order
No.
2012098;
k,
\
\
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 4/8
14.)
warrant
of
Arrest
against
the
Respondent
for
Qualified
Theft
issued,
7
Decemb
er
2012'
THE
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
Atty.
Delos
Santos,
in
his
defense,
presented
a
transcript
of
the
conversation
captured
in
the
entrapment
video
which'
according
to
him'
will
readily
reveal
the
Complainant's
demeanor
wherein
the
latter
acteel
normally,
as
ordinary
and
customary
without
any
trace
of
surprise
or
astonishment
when
he
placed
the
pile
of
money
o11
top
of
the
Complainant's table
and
within
his
unobstructed
view'
This'
he
claimecf
is
a
foolproof
evidence
of
the
complainant's
knowledge
from
the
beginling
that
he
was
to
receive
money
from
him'
A
normal
person
reacting
under
normal
circumstances,
especially
a
government
official'
would
have
had
reacted
or
inquired
when
a
pile
of
money
is
suddenly
placed
on
top
of
his
table.
This,
the
Complainant
notably
did
not
do'
Instead'
their
conversation
wentonnormallyandinf.act,whenhewasabouttoleavethe
Complainant,s
office,
the
latter
even
uttered
,,
thank
you
pare,,
Respondent
alieged
as
weli
that
in
anoiher
occasion
w-hich
lvas
also
capturecl
on
video,
he
was
forced
to
leave
another
bribe
money
amounting
to
Forty
Two
Thousand
Eight
Hundred
Pesos
(PhP
42'800'00)
to
the
Complainant's
staff
Gloria
Asinas'
on
4
Decembet
2012'
Moreover,
the
Respondent
countered
Complainant,s
claim
that
he
had
no
hand
in
the
approval
of
the
Contract
of
Lease
neither
did
he
had
anypowertostopit.Thisclaim,pertheRespondent,wascontravenedby
theComplainant,sownstatementsinhisCounter-Affidavitsubmitted
before
the
office
of
the
ombudsman
wherein
he
admitted
to
have
had
visited
the
CTLL
Building
in
his
capacity
as
Commissioner-in-Charge
of
Physicai
In-frasl,ructure
and
Development
of
the
PRC'
a
position
which
inevitably
empowered
him
to
intervene
in
the
approval
of
the
subject
contract.
Respondent
also
clarified
that
it
is
not
the
execution
of
the
Contract
which
was
used
as
a
leve
rageagainst
him
by
the
Cornplainant
but
the
validity
thereof
and
the
release
of
the
monthly
rentals
highlighting
the
factthattheComplainantisasignatorytothechecks.
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 5/8
Lastly,theRespondentdefendedhimselfagainstthealleged
fabricated
statements
and
a[egations
he
hurled
against
the
Complainant
in
violation
of
his
Lawyer,s
oath.
He
emphasrzed
that
his
allegations
were
not
fabricatecl
as
ploven
by
the
decision
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
dated
16
Muy
2013
which
found
substantial evidence against
the
Complainant
for
Grave
Misconduct
ancl
violation
of
section
7
(cl)of
RA
No
6713ordering
his
removal
from
office.
He
craimed
that
this
complaint
for
disbarment
is
obviously
an
act
of
revenge
by
the
Complainant
against
his
person.
The
Respondent,
thru
Atty.
Judith
Z.
Luis,
attached
the
,follclwing
DocumentaryEvidencetohisVerifiedPositionPaper:
1.)
Contract
of
Lease
between
him
and
the
PRC
dated
12
|Jovernber
2012;
2 )
PRC
Disbursement
voucher
for
the
2-months
security
Deposit
amounting
to
PhP
785'500'00;
3.)
PRC
Disbursement
voucher
for
the
2-moths
monthly
rentals
(octoberandNovemberzolz)amountingtoPhP785,600.00;
4.)ACopyofthepapershowingtheComplainant,sconrputationas
well
as
notations
in
the
Ccmplainant,S
clvn
hanrlr,r,ritirrg;
5.)
Request
for
cancellation
of
ururegotiated
Manager,s
C,lrecks;
6.)
CD
containing
the
video
of
the
supposecl
planned
entrapment
on
4
I)ecembet
2012;
7.)CDcontainingthevideooftheentrapmentonSDecember2]012;
8.)
Ombudsman
Decision
dated
16
May
20\3;
9.)
Letter
by
the
Respondent
to
DO]
Sec.
Leila
De
Lima
dated
L0
A to
T';
10.)
The
complainant's
Counter-Affidavit
submitted
before
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
dated
B
April
2013;
11.)
The
Respondent's
Complaint-Afficlavit
dated
3
December
marked
as
Exh.
,,QQ,,
at
the
1't
Div.
of
the
Sandiganbir.yan;
2012
12.)
Check
duplicate
for
the
2-months
rental
paid
to
the
l(espondent
showingthattheComplainantwasasignatorytothecheck.
=\tr
,\t
\
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 6/8
ISSUE
The
sole
issue
is
whether
or
not
the
Respondent
is
guilty
of
violating
Rule
1.01
canon
1
and
Rul
e
7.03,Canon
7
ol
the
tawyers'
Professional
Code
of
ResPonsibilitY
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
This
Commission
finds
in
the
negative'
Rule
1,.01.,
Canon
1
Provides:
,,A
laruyer
shnll
not
engage
in
unlazuful,
dishonest,
innnornl
or
deceitful
conduct'
While
Rule
7.09,
Canon
7
Provides:
A
Laroyer
shall
not
engage
in
conduct
that
adaersely
reflects
on
lis
fitness
to
prnctice
law,
noi
shall
he,
whether
in public
or priuate
life,
behaue
in
scandalous
mmner
to
the
disuedit
of
the legal
profession'
stripped
to
the
core,
the
complainant's
main
allegation
is
that
the
Respondent
had
framed
him
up
to
make
it
appear
that
he
had
forced
him
to
give
him
bribe
money
and
that
the
Respondent
had
deliberately
made
false
statements
under
oath
in
his
complaint-affidavits
in
order
to
support
the
charge
of
bribery
against
him.
This
Commission
is
not
persuaded'
After
a painstaking
evaluation
of
the
voluminous
pieces
of
evidence
submitted
by
both
the
Complainant
and
the
Respondent,
this
commission
finds
no
basis
for
the
instant
complaint'
The
videos
submitted
by
both
parties
speak
for
itself'
Tire
applicatiotr
of
the
principle
of
Res
ipsa
loquitur
is
apt'
The
videos
are
clear
enough
evidence
showing
whom
between
the
parties
had
indeed
committed
an
unlawful
and dishonest
conduct'
\,r
r
Y.
,\.
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 7/8
Lastly
but
more
import
antly,this
Commission
takes
judicial
notice
of
the
decision
rendered
by
the
office
of
the
ombudsmad
in
the
administrative
case
against
herein
Complainant
finding
him
GUILTY
of
Grave
Misconduct
and
violating
section
7
(d)
of
RA
No'
6713
and
ordered
DlsMlssEDfrompublicservice Withoutdelvingintomoredetails,this
decision
bolsters
the
need
tn
absolve
herein
Respondent
frorrr
the
instant
charges.
WHEREFORE,
in
,riew
of
the
furegoin8,
ii
is
herei:y
recomnlenrlect
that
instant
complaint
be
DISMISSED
for
want
of
any
factual
or
legal
basis'
Respectfully submitted this
11
May
2015'
MARIA
Commissioner
'
oMB-4-12-0453
(NBl-cTD
vs
Alfredo
Yap-Po),
16
May
2013'
7/23/2019 CBD No.14-4232 Commissioners Report
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cbd-no14-4232-commissioners-report 8/8
-
tl
i-i
14
-ffr^,t
'-
L;
i
t/'t {^l}
t,
ALFREDO
Y. PO,
ATTY.
ERNESTO
DAVID
L.
DELOS
SANTOS,
NOTICE
OF
RESOLUTION
Sir/Madam:
Please
take
notice
that
on
june
2l),2015
a
resoiution
was
passed
by
the
Board
of
Governors
of
the
Integrated
Bar of
the
Philippines
in
the
abcive-
entitled
case
the
origlnal
of
which
is now on
file
in this
office,
quote:
RESOLUTION
NO.
XXI-20T5-573
CBD
Case
No.14-4232
(Ad-.
Case
No.
9798)
Alfredo
Y.
Po
vs.
Atty.
Ernesto
David
L.
Delos
Santos
RESOLVE,D
to
ADOPT
antl
APPRO',E,
AS
iT
iS
hereblt
ADOPTED
and
APPROT/ED,
the
Report
and
Recommendation
of the
Inue;tigating
Commissioner
in
tlte
aboue-entitled
case,
herein
made
part
oJ
this
Reso/1ttion
as
Annex
'A ,
And
Jinding
the
recomruendation
n
be
jwlE
supported
fu
the
eaidence
on
record
and
applicable
laws,
the
case
is
berebl
DISMISSED.
ffft*z-L,ra*<, *'
NASSER
A.
MAROHOMSALIC
National
Secretarft/*
-ovef-
INTEGRATED
BAR
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
BOARD
OF
GOVERNORS
PASIG
CITY
Complainant,
-vefsus-
CBD
CASE
NO.
14.4232
(ADM.
CASE,
NO.
9798)
x-