A.C. No. 13468 – Legal Ethics – CPRA – Canon II; Propriety – Improper claim of influence
In 2014, Ryan Anthony Lim and his uncle were looking for a lawyer to assist them in filing a criminal complaint. Through a common friend, they were introduced to Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista who told them that he personally knew the prosecutor handling the case and that his personal acquaintance with the prosecutor is crucially important to the success of the case. Atty. Bautista then began collecting money from Lim for the mobilization of Atty. Bautista’s contacts to ensure the issuance of a resolution favorable to Lim and warrant of arrest against the person they were suing. Bautista even showed a draft resolution to Lim which is favorable to them and that they only need to shell out more money as there was a “bidding war” between them and the person they were suing. In total, Lim had given Php13.5 million to Bautista.
When Lim received a resolution which is adverse to their complaint, he demanded the return of their money but Bautista failed to return their money. Lim then filed a disbarment case against Bautista.
In his defense, Bautista denied the existence of attorney-client relationship. He did not deny receiving the money from Lim but he explained that he only received the money for purposes of safekeeping; that he withdrew the money and kept the millions in the trunk of his car so that he can readily return the money to Lim on demand.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista should be disbarred.
HELD: Yes. His version of the story is simply incredible (imagine keeping millions in your car trunk?). Further, he did not even successfully deny the allegations of Lim. There is substantial evidence presented to convince the Court that the money was exchanged in consideration of the legal services of Bautista and his promise for the mobilization of his contacts at the national prosecution service intended to ensure that a resolution favorable to Lim will be issued. Bautista tainted the image of the national prosecution service. His act of influence-peddling or implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system and puts the administration of justice in a bad light. Erring lawyers who are guilty of influence-peddling are unworthy of the title of an attorney. They must be meted the most severe penalty of disbarment. As an officer of the Court, Bautista has the paramount duty to protect the integrity of the court and the national prosecution service and assist in the administration of justice. Instead of relying on the merits of the case and fighting for his client’s cause with competence and diligence, Bautista represented that the national prosecution service and the administration of justice can be bribed and bought.
