By Atty. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
GIFTS/TRIPS TO IBP OFFICERS RENDERED BY SUPREME COURT INAPPROPRIATE
In a Decision dated 30 July 2024 in Re: Illegal Campaign Activities in Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Central Luzon Allegedly Perpetrated by Atty. Nilo Divina, the Supreme Court rendered Atty. Nilo Divina and several others guilty of Simple Misconduct and were sternly warned and fined for supposed impropriety in connection with trips to Balesin Resort and Bali, Indonesia for some officers of different Chapters of Central Luzon Region of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”).
While the Supreme Court did not find Atty. Divina to have violated Section 14 of the Revised IBP By-Laws since there is no convincing proof that the acts of sponsoring these trips was in aid of electing Atty. Divina as the next IBP Governor for Central Luzon, the Supreme Court still rendered Atty. Divina liable for supposedly violating Section 1 (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct.) and Section 2 (A lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.) of Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
In the Decision, the Supreme Court applied in analogy the laws applicable to public officers against soliciting, accepting or receiving of gifts. The Court held that while IBP Officers are not public officers for purposes of prosecution under these laws such as RA 3019 and RA 6713, the Court may draw parallelism from these laws in viewing what constitutes improper conduct for purposes of imposing administrative liability.
The Court held that IBP is not only involve in fostering the standards of the legal profession but in the administration of justice. The IBP exercises authority delegated by the Court in disciplinary proceedings of the members of the legal profession. Thus, its officers – whether in the National, Regional, or Local Chapters, according to the Court, should be held to a higher degree of standard and should, as much as possible, avoid involvement in activities that may erode the integrity and independence of the IBP as a public institution, and to ensure and maintain the appearance of impartiality in the performance of its functions.
The Court held that if an individual is willing to contribute, donate, or volunteer to further the efforts of the IBP, it must be tempered by the nature and purpose of the activity. The Court also held that the support should be in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the IBP and for the direct benefit of its members and should not solely be for the interest, use, and enjoyment of its officers.
The Court held that the trips to Balesin and Bali are undoubtedly not of insignificant or nominal value. The Court also held that the trips were not for the benefit of the general membership of the chapters but solely benefited the officers of IBP-Central Luzon and not in furtherance of the objectives of the IBP. The Court held that the trips crossed the borders on excessive and overstepped the line of propriety.
In an Official Statement from Atty. Divina, who is also the Dean of the UST College of Law, he will be filing of a motion for reconsideration. With three (3) dissenting opinions in Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Ramon Paul Hernando and Jhosep Lopez, the Decision is not yet final and executory and may still be modified or reversed. The author reserves his comment/opinion until the motion for reconsideration will be resolved. In any event, this Decision may serve as guidance as the new IBP By-Laws now allows earlier filing of candidacy for those who want to serve as officers of the IBP and will now have a campaign period.