Re: Illegal Campaign and Activities in Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Central Luzon Allegedly Perpetrated by Atty. Nilo Divina

 

Re: Illegal Campaign and Activities in Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Central Luzon Allegedly Perpetrated by Atty. Nilo Divina

A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC

July 30, 2024

 

FACTS:

                The instant case arose from an Anonymous Letter dated March 24, 2024 filed against Atty. Nilo T. Divina for alleged illegal campaigning activities relative to the election of the IBP-Central Luzon Region. According to the letter, Atty. Divina wants to become IBP-Central Luzon Governor has a stepping stone to become the IBP National President. Atty. Divina has allegedly spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pesos, in prohibited campaign activities. In particular the Anonymous Letter highlights the following instances wherein Atty. Divina allegedly foot the bill on behalf of the IBP-Central Luzon Officers:

1.       During the Summer of 2022, Atty. Divina brought the IBP-Central Luzon Officers to the Balesin Island Club in Polilio, Quezon;

2.       On December 2022, Atty. Divina gave out cash and gift checks worth hundreds of thousands of pesos to IBP-Central Luzon Officers; and

3.       On February 2023, Atty. Divina brought the IBP-Central Luzon Officers to Bali, Indonesia

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Atty. Divina violated the CPRA.

HELD:

                Yes. “Although We find that Atty. Divina did not commit any prohibited acts and practices relative to elections in the IBP, We nevertheless find him guilty of violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA. As an officer of the Court, a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. As instruments for the administration of justice and vanguards of our legal system, lawyers are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency, but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. the IBP as a public institution performs functions which involve not only fostering the standards of legal profession but the administration of justice. In addition, the IBP exercises authority delegated by this Court in disciplinary proceedings of the members of the legal profession. Thus, its officers-whether in the National, Regional, or Local Chapters 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. Thus, 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 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.

                In this case, Atty. Divina does not deny that he sponsored the trips of the IBP-Central Luzon Officers to Balesin Island Club and Bali, Indonesia. These “gifts” are undoubtedly not of insignificant or nominal value. Atty. Divina characterizes these as acts of generosity to support the IBP and its role in the legal profession. Atty. Divina may claim that these do not come with strings attached, but this “gift” necessarily creates a sense of obligation on the recipient to repay his gratitude in the future.

Notably however, these activities sponsored by Atty. Divina were primarily and solely for the benefit of the officers of IBP-Central Luzon. It does not support a particular activity of the IBP for the benefit of its constituent members, nor does it further a purpose or objective of the IBP. Although Atty. Divina claims his intentions in supporting the IBP and its activities are out of generosity; the sponsorship of the trips of the IBP-Central Luzon Officers to Balesin Island Club and to Bali, Indonesia crossed the borders on excessive and overstepped the line of propriety. This Court cannot countenance his actions as it casts serious doubts as to the IBP's integrity, impartiality, and independence. In his dealings with the IBP, the Court deems Atty. Divina' s conduct fell below the exacting standards of conduct expected of a member of the legal profession. Thus, the Court finds Atty. Divina guilty of Simple Misconduct in violation of Canon 11, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA.