Re: Atty. Victor C. Avecilla

A lawyer who borrows judicial records for unofficial purposes and retains them for an extended period is administratively liable for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Victor C. Avecilla was formerly employed as a member of the legal staff of retired Supreme Court Justice Emilio A. Gancayco. In 1985, before his employment with the Court, Atty. Avecilla and Louis C. Biraogo filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883, which was docketed as G.R. No. 72954 and dismissed in December 1985. The rollo of that case was subsequently entrusted to the Judicial Records Office (JRO) for safekeeping.

On July 14, 2003, Atty. Victor C. Avecilla and Louis C. Biraogo sent a letter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., requesting documents related to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), claiming they had contributed to the fund through docket and legal fees paid in G.R. No. 72954. To verify this claim, Chief Justice Davide instructed Atty. Teresita Dimaisip of the JRO to forward the rollo of G.R. No. 72954. On July 30, 2003, Atty. Dimaisip reported that the rollo could not be found. Using the tracer card, she discovered it had been borrowed on September 13, 1991, and never returned. The tracer card identified Atty. Avecilla as the borrower, with Atty. Salvador Banzon signing on his behalf.

At the time the rollo was borrowed, Atty. Avecilla was employed as a confidential legal staff member of Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, who had compulsorily retired on August 20, 1991. Avecilla's extended tenure was set to expire on September 18, 1991, meaning he borrowed the rollo just days before his employment ended. After being contacted by the JRO, Avecilla turned over the rollo on August 18, 2003, almost twelve years after it was borrowed. He claimed he never authorized anyone to borrow it and speculated it might have been inadvertently placed in his personal box by a colleague. The Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) and later the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) found his explanations unsatisfactory and recommended administrative sanctions.

• Denial of Borrowing: Respondent maintained that he neither borrowed nor authorized anyone to borrow the rollo of G.R. No. 72954, shifting blame to the person whose signature appeared on the tracer card, possibly Atty. Banzon.
• Inadvertent Possession: Respondent asserted that the rollo inexplicably ended up in his box of personal papers and effects, which he brought home following the retirement of Justice Gancayco, speculating a colleague might have misplaced it there.
• Lack of Ill-Motive: Respondent denounced any ill-motive for failing to return the rollo, claiming he never examined his personal box until contacted by the JRO, and cooperated immediately upon discovering the rollo was in his possession.

• Administrative Liability: Whether the respondent is administratively liable as a member of the bar for borrowing the rollo of G.R. No. 72954 and failing to return it for almost twelve years.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of one year suspension is appropriate.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. The respondent was held fully accountable for taking out the rollo and failing to return it, constituting an administratively punishable act and a violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Proper Penalty: No, one year was too harsh. The suspension was reduced to six months due to mitigating circumstances.

• Administrative Liability: The Court found that the respondent borrowed the rollo based on the tracer card entries and the fact that it was retrieved from his possession twelve years later. His excuse that it was inadvertently placed in his box was deemed unacceptable given his position as a confidential legal assistant to a Supreme Court Justice, who is expected to exercise extraordinary diligence. Taking judicial records outside court premises without consent is an administratively punishable act. Furthermore, borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails deceit and abuse of position, violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits government lawyers from using their public position to promote private interests.
• Proper Penalty: While the OBC recommended a one-year suspension, the penalty was tempered to six months. Mitigating circumstances favored the respondent: the case was already finally resolved when the rollo was borrowed, causing no prejudice to its adjudication; there was no evidence that the confidential contents were disclosed; and the respondent cooperated with the JRO for the return of the rollo after his possession was discovered.

• Prohibition on Removing Court Records — Court employees and lawyers are not allowed to take any court records, papers, or documents outside court premises without proper authorization. Doing so constitutes an administratively punishable act. The doctrine was applied to hold the respondent liable for taking the rollo home and retaining it for twelve years.
• Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer in government service shall not use their public position to promote or advance private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with public duties. The respondent violated this rule by using his position as a confidential staff member to borrow the rollo for personal use.

• "Court employees are, in the first place, not allowed to take any court records, papers or documents outside the court premises." — This passage, quoted from Fabiculana, Sr. vs. Gadon, establishes the fundamental rule against unauthorized removal of judicial records, which formed the basis for the respondent's administrative liability.
• "The act of the respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails the employment of deceit not becoming a member of the bar." — This statement links the unauthorized borrowing of the rollo to the ethical standards required of lawyers, justifying the disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Fabiculana, Sr. vs. Gadon, A.M. No. P-94-1101, 29 December 1994, 239 SCRA 542 — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that taking court records outside court premises without authorization is an administratively punishable act.

• Rule 6.02, Canon 6, Code of Professional Responsibility — Applied to hold the respondent liable for using his position as a confidential staff member to borrow the rollo for personal use.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution — Cited to affirm the Supreme Court's supervisory and disciplinary authority over members of the bar.

Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ., concur.