Bildner v. Ilusorio (G.R. No. 157384; June 5, 2009)
CASE DIGGEST: ERLINDA I. BILDNER and MAXIMO K. ILUSORIO V. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, RAMON K. ILUSORIO, et. al.
FACTS: The disbarment case against respondent Atty. Singson stemmed from his alleged attempt, as counsel of Ramon Ilusorio (Ramon) in Civil Case No. 4537-R, to exert influence on presiding Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in Ramon’s favor. To complainant-petitioners, the bid to influence, which allegedly came in the form of a bribe offer, may be deduced from the following exchanges during the May 31, 2000 hearing on Ramon’s motion for Judge Reyes to inhibit himself from hearing Civil Case No. 4537-R. In the said hearing, Judge Reyes narrated that Atty. Singson has been calling his residence in Baguio City for about 20 to 50 times already and had offered Atty. Oscar Sevilla, his classmate at Ateneo Law School P500,000 to give it to him for the purpose of ruling in favor of Ramon. Complainant-petitioners likewise submitted an affidavit made by Judge Reyes concerning the attempts of Atty. Singson to bribe him concerning the case of Ramon Ilusorio vs. Baguio Country Club. The attempts to bribe him consisted of visiting him about three times in his office and making a dozen calls to his Manila and Baguio Residences offering him bribe money. Complainant-petitioners also submitted Atty. Oscar Sevilla’s affidavit to support the attempted bribery charge against Atty. Singson.
In view of the foregoing considerations, petitioners prayed for the disbarment or discipline of Atty. Singson for attempted bribery and gross misconduct.
ISSUE: SHOULD ATTY. SINGSON BE ADMINISTRATIVELY DISCIPLINED OR DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR ALLEGED GROSS MISCONDUCT IN ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE JUDGE ANTONIO REYES?
HELD: There is a well-grounded reason to believe that Atty. Singson indeed attempted to influence Judge Reyes decide a case in favor of Atty. Singson’s client. The interplay of the documentary evidence presented provide for the reason. Significantly, Atty. Singson admitted having made phone calls to Judge Reyes, either in his residence or office in Baguio City during the period material. He offers the lame excuse, however, that he was merely following up the status of a temporary restraining order applied for and sometimes asking for the resetting of hearings.
The Court finds the explanation proffered as puerile as it is preposterous. Matters touching on case status could and should be done through the court staff, and resetting is usually accomplished thru proper written motion or in open court. And going by Judge Reyes’ affidavit, the incriminating calls were sometimes made late in the evening and sometimes in the most unusual hours, such as while Judge Reyes was playing golf with Atty. Sevilla. Atty. Sevilla lent corroborative support to Judge Reyes’ statements, particularly about the fact that Atty. Singson wanted Judge Reyes apprised that they, Singson and Sevilla, were law school classmates.
The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that Atty. Singson was indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his client’s favor. This conduct is not acceptable in the legal profession for it violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In assessing the case, we must stress the difficulty of proving bribery. The transaction is always done in secret and often only between the two parties concerned. Indeed, there is no concrete evidence in the records regarding the commission by Atty. Singson of attempted bribery. Even Atty. Sevilla did not mention any related matter in his affidavit. Nevertheless, Judge Reyes’ disclosures in his affidavit and in open court deserve some weight. The possibility of an attempted bribery is not far from reality considering Atty. Singson’s persistent phone calls, one of which he made while Judge Reyes was with Atty. Sevilla. Judge Reyes’ declaration may have been an "emotional outburst" as described by Atty. Singson, but the spontaneity of an outburst only gives it more weight.
While the alleged attempted bribery may perhaps not be supported by evidence other than Judge Reyes’ statements, there is nevertheless enough proof to hold Atty. Singson liable for unethical behavior of attempting to influence a judge, itself a transgression of considerable gravity. However, heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment where a lesser sanction would suffice to accomplish the desired end, a suspension for one year from the practice of law appears appropriate.
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/projectjuris/
Twitter page: https://twitter.com/projectjuris
YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQnK7a9MCpNGbBsBDel3alA
Another YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Bd7nvmurwtJYmeBdP9QiA
