Norma F. Flores and Mark Sherwin F. Flores vs. Atty. William F. Delos Santos

A lawyer commits gross misconduct warranting disbarment when he deceives a client into paying money to bribe appellate justices, fails to render competent legal service, and disobeys lawful orders, especially where he has previously been suspended. Such conduct violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility and may be established by substantial evidence.

Respondent Atty. William F. Delos Santos was a member of the Philippine Bar who had previously been suspended by the Supreme Court in another disciplinary case. Complainants Norma F. Flores and Mark Sherwin F. Flores are mother and son. The disciplinary complaint arose from the professional relationship that Norma thereafter entered into with Atty. Delos Santos to pursue Mark's appeal, a relationship governed by the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Mark Sherwin F. Flores was convicted of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 11-288297 and 11-288298 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23. Within the period to file an appeal, his mother Norma F. Flores engaged the services of Atty. William F. Delos Santos, who asked for ₱20,000.00 as initial acceptance fee and ₱5,000.00 as payment for the request of documents. Norma immediately paid him those amounts. Atty. Delos Santos subsequently asked for additional payments, to which Norma acceded. By July 9, 2015, she had paid him a total of ₱77,500.00.

On July 9, 2015, Norma visited Atty. Delos Santos at his residence in Bacoor City, Cavite to inquire about the status of her son's appeal. He informed her that he had already submitted his Formal Entry of Appearance before the Court of Appeals on July 8, 2015, and again asked for additional fees. On July 18, 2015, Atty. Delos Santos coaxed Norma to produce an additional ₱160,000.00, which he said would be used to bribe the Justices of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, before whom Mark's case was pending. He told her that she should prepare ₱160,000.00 if she wanted Mark acquitted, that there was no other way but to give the amount demanded by the Justices, and that he already had someone inside to expedite the process. He also said that ₱10,000.00 would go to an errand runner and ₱150,000.00 would be given at ₱50,000.00 per Justice. He persuaded her by insisting that this was the only option to obtain a favorable judgment for her son.

Relying on his guarantee, Norma borrowed money from friends and relatives to raise the amount. Following his instructions, she deposited various sums totaling ₱160,000.00 on August 5, 2015, August 15, 2015, and October 5, 2015 in Banco De Oro Savings Account No. 4760100442 under the name of Atty. Delos Santos' wife, Reinalyn B. Delos Santos. Upon receiving the total amount, Atty. Delos Santos reassured Norma that the money would be delivered to his insider or facilitator with the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals.

The Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed Mark's conviction in its ruling dated July 25, 2016. Norma then discovered that Atty. Delos Santos had failed to file an Appellant's Reply Brief despite his commitment to do so. When she called him, he responded that he did not know what happened despite making the necessary arrangement with the Justices, including his facilitator inside the Court of Appeals. He promised to return the money within a week and to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration.

In their Complaint, Norma and Mark accused Atty. Delos Santos of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct. They alleged that he knowingly rendered illegal advice, was grossly remiss in his duties as counsel by failing to file an Appellant's Reply Brief, and showed no remorse despite a previous suspension in another disciplinary case. They asked the Court to disbar him. Atty. Delos Santos denied the accusations and claimed that the ₱160,000.00 covered the payment of his attorney's fees.

• Dishonest and Deceitful Conduct: Complainants accused Atty. Delos Santos of engaging in dishonest and deceitful conduct, including knowingly rendering illegal advice.
• Gross Neglect of Duty: Complainants maintained that he was grossly remiss in the performance of his duties as counsel, as evidenced by his failure to file an Appellant's Reply Brief on behalf of Mark.
• Prior Suspension and Lack of Remorse: Complainants argued that his previous suspension in another disciplinary case and his failure to show remorse demonstrated his present perversity and warranted disbarment.
• Evidence of Payments: Complainants relied on Norma's affidavit and bank deposit slips to establish that she deposited ₱160,000.00 in the account of Atty. Delos Santos' wife for the purpose he stated.

• Denial of Bribery Allegation: Respondent emphatically denied Norma's allegation that he prevailed upon her to deposit ₱160,000.00 for the purpose of bribing the Justices of the Court of Appeals.
• Attorney's Fees: Respondent asserted that the ₱160,000.00 covered the payment of his attorney's fees.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: Whether Atty. William F. Delos Santos is guilty of gross misconduct as to warrant his disbarment from the practice of law.
• Restitution and Interest: Whether Atty. Delos Santos must return the ₱160,000.00 to complainants, with legal interest.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: Yes. Atty. Delos Santos willfully engaged in gross misconduct, violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility; disbarment is warranted, especially because he is a repeat offender.
• Restitution and Interest: Yes. He must return ₱160,000.00 to complainants, with six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from receipt of the Decision until full satisfaction.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: Atty. Delos Santos' failure to comply with the Court's November 16, 2016 Notice, which required him to comment on the Complaint, lent credence to the averments therein and manifested his tacit admission of the same. He did not provide any justifiable reason for his prolonged silence and refusal to comply with the orders of the Court and the IBP. Gross misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implying wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. Lawyers are officers of the court and vanguards of the legal system, expected to act with honesty and to abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. The complainant bears the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions reflecting unfitness for the legal profession. Norma's affidavit, coupled with the bank deposit slips, amply supported her allegation that she deposited ₱160,000.00 in the savings account of Atty. Delos Santos' wife. His mere denial that the amount was for attorney's fees was intrinsically weak, unsubstantiated, and self-serving; Norma's clear and categorical narration was more convincing. Atty. Delos Santos took advantage of a mother's desperation by misleading and deceiving her into believing that he could bribe and influence the Justices of the Court of Appeals to rule in her son's favor. This cast doubt upon the integrity of the legal system, eroded public confidence in the Judiciary, and brought dishonor to the legal profession. He violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02; Canon 10, Rule 10.01; Canon 13; and Canon 15, Rules 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was also negligent in handling Mark's case, failing to apprise Norma and Mark of the status of the appeal and to submit an Appellant's Reply Brief despite his commitment. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, or willful disobedience of lawful orders. Although the Court will not disbar where a lesser penalty suffices, it does not hesitate to impose disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender. Atty. Delos Santos' previous suspension was an aggravating circumstance, and he deserved no less than the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
• Restitution and Interest: Atty. Delos Santos was ordered to return the ₱160,000.00 to complainants. In conformity with Alfredo San Gabriel vs. Atty. Jonathan Sempio, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum was imposed on the amount, accruing from the time of Atty. Delos Santos' receipt of the Decision until full satisfaction.

• Gross Misconduct — Gross misconduct is improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment. The Court applied this doctrine to Atty. Delos Santos' deception of Norma into paying ₱160,000.00 to bribe appellate justices, his neglect in failing to file an Appellant's Reply Brief, and his disobedience of lawful orders.
• Substantial Evidence in Disbarment Proceedings — The complainant bears the burden of establishing by substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions reflecting unfitness for the legal profession. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Norma's affidavit and bank deposit slips met this standard; Atty. Delos Santos' bare denial did not overcome it.
• Denial as Weak Defense — A denial is intrinsically weak and must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving. The Court rejected Atty. Delos Santos' denial that the ₱160,000.00 was for attorney's fees in light of Norma's clear and categorical narration.
• Prohibition on Influence Peddling and Duty of Candor — A lawyer must not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body, and must rely on the merits of the cause. Atty. Delos Santos violated this doctrine by claiming he could bribe Court of Appeals Justices and by misleading his client about the prospects of the case.
• Disbarment for Repeat Offenders — Although the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end, it does not hesitate to impose disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender. Atty. Delos Santos' previous suspension was treated as an aggravating circumstance supporting the ultimate penalty.
• Restitution and Legal Interest — A disbarred lawyer may be ordered to return amounts wrongfully obtained from a client, with legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from receipt of the Decision until full satisfaction, consistent with Alfredo San Gabriel vs. Atty. Jonathan Sempio.

• "Gross misconduct is defined as 'improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment." — This passage supplies the canonical definition of gross misconduct applied to justify disbarment.
• "For the Court to exercise its disciplinary power to punish members of the Bar for gross misconduct, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant who must establish with substantial evidence that the lawyer committed acts or omissions which reflect his or her unfitness for the legal profession. Substantial evidence is defined as 'that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.'" — This passage states the evidentiary standard governing disbarment proceedings and defines substantial evidence.
• "Atty. Delos Santos blatantly took advantage of a mother's sheer desperation over the plight of her son. By deliberately misleading and deceiving Norma that he can bribe and influence the Justices of the Court of Appeals to rule in her son's favor, Atty. Delos Santos ineludibly cast doubt upon the integrity of the legal system, eroded public confidence in the Judiciary, and brought intolerable dishonor to the legal profession." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for the finding of gross misconduct and the harm caused to the legal system.
• "While it is settled that the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end, the Court does not hesitate to impose the penalty of disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender." — This passage explains why the ultimate penalty of disbarment was imposed rather than a lesser sanction.

• Ong vs. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332-342 (2014) — Prior disciplinary case in which respondent was suspended; the Court treated this suspension as an aggravating circumstance and basis for disbarment as a repeat offender.
• Unity Fishing Development Corporation vs. Atty. Macalino, 487 Phil. 235, 243 (2004) — Cited to support the conclusion that failure to comply with the Court's notice requiring comment lends credence to the complaint's averments and manifests tacit admission.
• Buenaventura vs. Atty. Gille, A.C. No. 7446, December 9, 2020 — Cited for the definition of gross misconduct and the principle that a lawyer must remain competent, honorable, and reliable, and that gross misconduct putting moral character in serious doubt renders one unfit to practice law.
• Presiding Judge Cobarrubias-Nabaza vs. Atty. Lavandero, A.M. No. 2017-07-SC / A.C. No. 12323, March 14, 2022 — Cited for the role of lawyers as officers of the court and vanguards of the legal system tasked to protect truth and the rule of law.
• Gubaton vs. Atty. Amador, 825 Phil. 834-835 (2018) — Cited for the rule that denial is an intrinsically weak defense and must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.
• Vda. Eleanor V. Francisco vs. Atty. Real, A.C. No. 12689, formerly CBD Case No. 14-4459, September 1, 2020 — Cited for the principle that the Court does not hesitate to impose disbarment when the guilty party has become a repeat offender.
• Alfredo San Gabriel vs. Atty. Jonathan Sempio, 850 Phil. 533, 542 (2019) — Cited as basis for imposing six percent (6%) per annum legal interest on the amount to be returned, accruing from receipt of the Decision until full satisfaction.
• Roa-Buenafe vs. Atty. Lirazan, 850 Phil. 1, 12 (2019) — Cited for the principle that membership in the legal profession is a privilege bestowed on individuals with good moral character.
• Rev. Fr. Zafra vs. Atty. Pagatpatan, 850 Phil. 1152, 1159 (2019) — Cited for the Court's duty to withdraw the privilege of law practice when an attorney is no longer worthy of trust and confidence.

• Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes; shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct; and shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Atty. Delos Santos violated these provisions by deceiving Norma into paying bribe money and undermining confidence in the judiciary.
• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court and shall not do any falsehood or mislead the court. His false assurances about influencing the Court of Appeals violated this duty.
• Canon 13, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court. His bribery scheme violated this canon.
• Canon 15, Rules 15.05, 15.06, and 15.07, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer must observe candor, fairness, and loyalty to clients; give candid and honest advice on the merits and probable results of the client's case; not state or imply ability to influence any public official, tribunal, or legislative body; and impress upon clients compliance with law and fairness. Atty. Delos Santos violated these rules by misleading Norma and claiming influence over Justices.
• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides grounds for disbarment or suspension, including deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, violation of the lawyer's oath, and willful disobedience of lawful orders. The Court applied this provision in disbarring Atty. Delos Santos.
• Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Cited as the offenses for which Mark was convicted in Criminal Case Nos. 11-288297 and 11-288298, giving rise to Norma's engagement of Atty. Delos Santos for the appeal.
• Lawyer's Oath — The Court found Atty. Delos Santos violated the Lawyer's Oath, along with the Code of Professional Responsibility, through his dishonest and deceitful conduct.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur.