Yulo-Antero vs. Delos Santos

A lawyer who has already been disbarred may still be fined for administrative offenses committed prior to disbarment, with the penalty recorded in his personal file for consideration in any future petition for reinstatement, and may be declared ineligible for judicial clemency when his repeated infractions demonstrate a persistent lack of moral uprightness.

Judge Janice R. Yulo-Antero, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 16, Manila, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. William F. Delos Santos charging him with gross misrepresentation in connection with his representation of a criminal defendant, Hadji Nabila Amatonding, who was charged with violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 9516, a non-bailable offense. Atty. Delos Santos had previously been suspended from the practice of law in 2014 in Ong vs. Atty. Delos Santos and subsequently disbarred in 2023 in Flores vs. Atty. Delos Santos for separate ethical infractions. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023, was applied retroactively to the case as the Court found such application feasible and just.

On November 18, 2016, Atty. William F. Delos Santos represented Hadji Nabila Amatonding in Criminal Case No. 16-330341 for violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 9516, raffled to Branch 16, RTC, Manila, presided over by Judge Janice R. Yulo-Antero. On the same date, Judge Antero issued an Order of Judicial Determination of Probable Cause setting arraignment for December 6, 2016, and indicating "NO BAIL." On November 28, 2016, Atty. Delos Santos filed an Urgent Motion for Application for Bail, praying that the motion be set for hearing on December 2, 2016. Meanwhile, Judge Antero issued an Order dated November 28, 2016 for consolidation of the case with another criminal case against Amatonding pending with Branch 14. Judge Felicitas Laron-Cacanindin, Presiding Judge of RTC, Manila, Branch 17, did not approve the consolidation and, on December 6, 2016, ordered the release of Amatonding.

During the hearing of Amatonding's motion for bail on January 30, 2017, neither Amatonding nor Atty. Delos Santos appeared. SPO2 Apolonio Ellao, one of the arresting officers, submitted the Orders issued by Judge Cacanindin and informed Judge Antero that Amatonding had been released on December 7, 2016. Judge Antero thereupon directed the Manila City Jail Female Dormitory to explain why Amatonding was released despite the pendency of another non-bailable offense and issued a warrant of arrest against Amatonding.

On February 6, 2017, JSupt. Elena B. Rocamora, the jail warden, and JO2 Alvin M. Villena, the releasing officer, both from the Manila City Jail Female Dormitory, appeared before Branch 16 to explain the early release. They stated that they relied on the Release Order of Judge Cacanindin and did not verify with the Office of the Clerk of Court or the Office of the City Prosecutor whether any other pending cases existed against Amatonding. They also disclosed that Atty. Delos Santos had called them questioning why Amatonding was not yet released and had gone to the Manila City Jail Female Dormitory on December 7, 2016 to present documents and give assurance that there was no other case filed or pending against Amatonding.

Appearing before Judge Antero, Atty. Delos Santos admitted his misrepresentation, explaining that he was forced to claim there were no other cases against Amatonding to secure her release since her and her children's lives were under threat. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. Delos Santos also failed to appear in two scheduled mandatory conferences and to submit his position paper, in addition to failing to file his answer and mandatory brief.

• Justification for Misrepresentation: Respondent admitted his misrepresentation but explained that he was forced to falsely claim there were no other cases against his client to secure her release because her and her children's lives were under threat.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Delos Santos should be suspended from the practice of law for two years and directed to pay a fine of PHP 10,000 for gross misrepresentation and disobedience of IBP orders.
• Penalty for a Disbarred Lawyer: Whether and what penalties may be imposed on a lawyer who has already been disbarred for offenses committed prior to his disbarment.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Atty. Delos Santos committed serious dishonesty by willfully and deliberately making false representations to jail personnel, and willfully disobeyed the lawful orders of the IBP by failing to file his answer, mandatory brief, and position paper, and by failing to appear at two mandatory conferences.

• Penalty for a Disbarred Lawyer: Fines may still be imposed. Because Atty. Delos Santos had already been disbarred, the penalty of suspension or disbarment could no longer be imposed; instead, fines of PHP 200,000 for serious dishonesty and PHP 100,000 for willful disobedience of IBP orders were imposed and ordered recorded in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant. He was further declared ineligible for judicial clemency.

• Administrative Liability: The Court found Atty. Delos Santos's misrepresentation undisputed. He admitted before Judge Antero that he falsely claimed before the jail warden and releasing officer of the Manila City Jail Female Dormitory, and even gave assurance, that there was no other case against his client, despite knowing that a pending non-bailable case existed before Branch 16, RTC, Manila. These acts constituted dishonest or deceitful conduct under Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA (and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR), which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon II, Sections 11 and 12 further prohibit false representations and require lawyers to report dishonest conduct. The Court classified the dishonesty as gross because the misrepresentation was willfully and deliberately committed and resulted in the disruption of the court's processes. His explanation of an alleged threat to his client's life was insufficient to excuse the falsehood. The Court also noted his willful disobedience of IBP directives: he failed to file his answer, mandatory brief, and position paper, and failed to appear at two scheduled mandatory conferences, manifesting disrespect for judicial authorities.

• Penalty for a Disbarred Lawyer: The Court applied Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA, which provides that when a respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine; if the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, that penalty shall not be imposed but shall be recorded in the disbarred lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant for consideration in any future petition for reinstatement. The Court relied on Fernando vs. Atty. Pallugna, citing Valmonte vs. Atty. Quesada, Jr., which established that once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty regarding the privilege to practice law can be imposed, but the Court retains jurisdiction to impose fines for offenses committed prior to disbarment. Serious dishonesty under Section 37(a) of Canon VI is punishable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000; willful disobedience under Section 37(b) is punishable by suspension of one to six months or a fine ranging from PHP 35,000 to PHP 100,000. The Court imposed PHP 200,000 for gross dishonesty and PHP 100,000 for willful disobedience. Given his prior suspension in 2014 and disbarment in 2023, and this being his third administrative offense, the Court declared him ineligible for judicial clemency, emphasizing that good moral character is a continuing requirement for the practice of law.

• Penalty for a Disbarred Lawyer — When a lawyer has already been disbarred, the penalties of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed for subsequent or pending administrative charges. However, the Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by the disbarred lawyer while still a member of the legal profession and may impose fines, which are recorded in the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant for consideration in any future petition for reinstatement. This doctrine is codified in Canon VI, Section 42 of the CPRA and was applied here to impose fines of PHP 200,000 and PHP 100,000 upon Atty. Delos Santos, who had already been disbarred in Flores vs. Atty. Delos Santos.

• Gross Dishonesty as Serious Offense — Dishonesty is considered gross when it is willfully and deliberately committed and results in the disruption of court processes. Dishonest and deceitful conduct involves moral turpitude and includes anything done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals. Under Canon VI, Section 37(a) of the CPRA, serious dishonesty is a serious offense punishable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000.

• Ineligibility for Judicial Clemency — A lawyer who is a repeat offender, having been previously suspended and disbarred, and who continues to demonstrate belligerent behavior and disregard for professional and ethical standards, may be declared ineligible for judicial clemency. The Court applied this principle to Atty. Delos Santos, who was found administratively liable for the third time, declaring that any future attempt to seek judicial clemency ought to be rejected.

• "There is no double or multiple disbarment in our laws and jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law. The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes." — This passage articulates the doctrine governing penalties for already-disbarred lawyers, establishing that fines may still be imposed and recorded for future reinstatement proceedings.

• "But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the disbarred lawyer, it can still give the corresponding penalty only for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into consideration in the event that the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift his disbarment." — This explains the rationale for recording penalties against disbarred lawyers: to ensure prior infractions are considered in any future petition for reinstatement.

• "Despite his previous suspension and disbarment, respondent continued to show belligerent behavior which manifests a serious flaw in his character warranting further administrative sanction. Notably, this is the third time that respondent has been found guilty of an administrative offense; his numerous infractions show his lack of moral uprightness in the legal profession as member of the Bar and an officer of the court." — This passage provides the basis for declaring Atty. Delos Santos ineligible for judicial clemency, tying his repeated infractions to a fundamental character flaw.

• Yamon-Leach vs. Atty. Astorga, 860 Phil. 403 (2019) — Cited for the principle that good moral character is a continuing requirement for membership in the Philippine Bar, and that deceitful conduct justifies disbarment. The Court used this case to define dishonesty and deceitful conduct and to characterize Atty. Delos Santos's misrepresentation as serious dishonesty.

• Ong vs. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332 (2014) — The Court's 2014 decision finding Atty. Delos Santos guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and several CPR provisions, for which he was suspended for six months with a warning. Cited to establish his status as a repeat offender.

• Flores vs. Atty. Delos Santos, 936 Phil. 436 (2023) — The decision in which Atty. Delos Santos was disbarred for attempting to bribe Court of Appeals Justices. Cited as the basis for the Court's holding that suspension or disbarment could no longer be imposed, and that only fines could be meted out and recorded.

• Fernando vs. Atty. Pallugna, 936 Phil. 338 (2023) — Cited with approval for the doctrine, in turn citing Valmonte vs. Atty. Quesada, Jr., that once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty regarding the privilege to practice law can be imposed, but the Court may still impose fines and record penalties for future reinstatement proceedings.

• Robiñol vs. Atty. Bassig, 821 Phil. 28 (2017) — Cited for the proposition that a fine of PHP 10,000 may be imposed for repeated and unjustified refusal to comply with the IBP's lawful directives.

• Canon II, Section 1, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to characterize Atty. Delos Santos's false representations to jail personnel as dishonest and deceitful conduct.

• Canon II, Sections 11 and 12, CPRA — Section 11 prohibits a lawyer from making false representations or statements; Section 12 makes it a lawyer's duty to report dishonest, deceitful, or misleading conduct. Applied to Atty. Delos Santos's false assurance that no other case was pending against his client.

• Canon VI, Section 33, in relation to Section 37, CPRA — Classifies serious dishonesty as a serious offense punishable by disbarment, suspension exceeding six months, revocation of notarial commission, or a fine exceeding PHP 100,000; and willful and deliberate disobedience of IBP orders as a less serious offense punishable by suspension of one to six months or a fine ranging from PHP 35,000 to PHP 100,000.

• Canon VI, Section 42, CPRA — Provides that when a respondent has been previously disbarred and is subsequently found guilty of a new charge, the Court may impose a fine; if the new charge deserves disbarment or suspension, that penalty shall not be imposed but shall be recorded in the disbarred lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant for consideration in any future petition for reinstatement. This was the controlling provision for imposing fines upon Atty. Delos Santos despite his prior disbarment.

• Section 1, General Provisions, CPRA — States that the CPRA shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except where retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. The Court found retroactive application feasible and just in this case.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) — The predecessor provision to Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA, prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Cited alongside the CPRA provisions.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Singh, J., was on leave.