Republic of the PhiliPPines

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

C O lvt1vfi S S I O 9\f O $t (Bn&D I S U Q L I t\EPasig City

,'i-iln*g ur4ru

1 t.,, 'hul\f.&\

ALFREDO Y. PO,Complainant, CBD CASE NO. L4-4232

(ADM CASE NO.e7e8)

-VERSUS-

ATTY. ERNESTO DAVID L. DELOS SANTOS,

Respondent.

x==========L--

COMMISSIONER,S REPORT

On 18 February 2013, the Supreme Court- Office of the Bar Confidant

receiveC the instant cornplaint against herein Respondent seeking for the

investigation and disbarment of the Respondent for violation of Rmletr.0l,

Canon L, and, Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Lawyers' Code of Professional

Responsibility.

THE COMPLAINANT,S CAUSE OF ACTION

The Complainant's main allegation was that the Respondent

committed unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct for maliciously

"framing him up" for a crime he did not commit causing him tremendous

damage and prejudice, which acts show Respondent's disregard of liisOath as a Lawyer.

Complainant was a Commissioner of the Professional Regulations

Commission (PRC) when the alleged framing-up transpired" I-Ie was

charged for allegedly soliciting and accepting the amount of Four Hunclrecl

Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP 430,000.00) in relation to a Contract of Lease

executed b,etween the PRC and the Respondent. Consequently, four (4)

different Information were filed against tris person for violation of Section 3

(b) of RA No. 3019, Section 7 (d) of I{A No. 6713, Artictre 21.0 oI the Revised

penal Code and Articles 293 and,294 of the same Code, all on the basis of a

complaint filed by the NBl-Counter Terrorism Division (NBI-CTD) and the

Respondent. The complaint was based on the Respondent's affidavit and

the entrapment video which allegedly captured the Complainant accepting

"bribe money" left atop his desk by the Respondent himself' The

complainant was thereafter detained and suspended from office.

The alleged bribery was rooted from the execution of a Contract of

l.ease between the PRC and the Respondent concerning a building (CTLL

Building) owned by the latter situated in 141 Abanao Extension, Brgy"I-

Rizal Monument, Baguio City, leased by the PRC's Regional Office" The

said Contract was executed onl}November 2012"

Complainant alleged that he was falsely accused of having a hand in

the negotiations and approval of the execution of the said contract. He had

allegedly threatened to intervene in the renewal of the said Contract if the

Respondent will not give in to his demands for rnonthly commissions

coming from the monthly rentals which the Complainant allegedly has the

power to hold the release being a signatory to the checks. He had allegedly

bragged that he will be the next PRC Chairperson and that he still has eight

(B) years to serve once the current Chairrnan retires.

Complainant claimed that he did not intervene nor does he has any

power to intervene in the subject Contract as he was not even a mernber of

PRC-BAC(Bids and Awards Committee) and that it is highly inconceivable

that he would " extort" or demand payment/commission after the Conlract

of Lease was already concluded and long implemented in July 201,2 even

before it was signecl in November 2012. Lastly, he also asserted that the

video clip of the entrapment operation on 5 December 2072 proves his

innocence instead of his guilt. He alleged that as can be gleaned from the

video, it is obvious that he has no knowledge about the "renewal" which

ihe Respondent was talking about. He likeurise highlighted the absence of

threat or intimidation as can be concluded from the alleged calm demeanor

he exhibited during the conversation. He also emphasized, that there was

no "acceptance" of the bribe money as it was only left atop his desk and

nothing more was done with it. In fact, he was tested negative forfluorescent powder which were dusted on the money bills placecl on his

desk.

Additionally, the Complainant accused the Respondent of concocting

facts stated in his sworn affidavit-complaint particularly par. I of the

Supplemental Sworn Affidavit wherein the Respondent stated that the

Complainant demanded that the money be placed on his table. This, he

said does not match with what actually transpired as can be derived from

the entrapment footage. Another lie, according to the Complainant,'is that

when the Respondent stated that he promised that he will surely attend to

the renewal of the Contract which was also negated by the video'

The Complainant alleged that from the foregoing, the Respondent

violated Rule 1.01 of Canon L and Rule 7.A3 of Canon 7 of the Lawyers'

Code of Professional Responsibility.

In the Mandatory Conference on 19 August 201.4, only the

Complainant, assisted by his counsel, Attys. Iftistine R. Ferrer and Julie

Ann G. Silva appeared hence, it proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, the parties

filed their respective Verified Position Papers.

The Complainant submitted the following pieces of Documentary

Evidence attached to his Mandatory Conference Brief:

1.) Complaint-Affidavit of Respondent dated 3 December 2412;

2.)Supplemental Sworn Statement of Respondent dated 5 l)ecember

2012;

3.) Copy of the Video taken during the entrapment operation

conducted by the NBI and the Respondent on 5 December 2012;

4.) Lease Contract befween the PRC and the Respondent date d 12

November 2012;

5.) PRC Office Order No. 88 dated B March2012;

6.) Letter Request of RD Sison;

7 .) Letter Reply of the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR);

B.)Letter of RD Sison dated 16 April 2012;

9.) Cost-Benefit Analysis of RD Sison;

10.) Letter of Intent of Chairperson Mananzala;11.) Results of Flourescent Powder Test of the Complainant;

12.) Travel Order No. 2012-353 datedZ7 J:':Jy 2012;

13.) PRC Office Order No. 2012098;

\,K'

\

14.) Warrant of Arrest against the Respondent for Qualified Theft

issued 7 December 2012.

THE RESPONDENT,S DEFHNSE

Atty. Delos Santos, in his defense, presented a transcript of the

conversation captured in the entrapment video which, according to him,

will readily reveal the Complainant's demeanor wherein the latter acted

normally, as ordinary and customary without any trace of surprise or

astonishment when he placed the pile of money on top of the

Complainant's table and within his unobstructed view. This, he claimecl, is

a foolproof evidence of the Complainant's knowledge from the beginning

that he was to receive money from him. A normal person reacting under

normal circumstancesr especially a government official, would have had

reacted or inquired when a pile of money is suddenly placed on top of his

table. This, the Complainant notably did not do. Instead, their conversation

went on normally and in tact, when he was about to leave the

Complainant's office, the latter even uttered " thank you pare" .

Respondent alleged as weii that in anoiirer occasion which was also

captured on video, he was forced to leave another bribe money amounting

to Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Pesos (PhP 42,800"00) to the

Complainant's staff, Gloria Asinas, on 4 December 2A12.

Moreover, the Respondent countered Complainant's claim that he

had no hand in the approval of the Contract of Lease neither did he had

any power to stop it. This claim, per the Respondent, was contravened by

the Complainant's own statements in his Counter-Affidavit submittedbefore the Office of the Ombudsman wherein he admitted to have had

visited the CTLL Building in his capacity as Commissioner-in-Charge ofPhysical Infraskucture and Development of the PRC, a position whichinevitably empowered him to intervene in the approval of the subjectContract. Respondent also clarified that it is not the execution of theContract which was used as a leverage against him by the Complainant burt

the validity thereof and the release of the monthly rentals highlighting thefact that the Complainant is a signatory to the checks.

O\F\'

Lastly, the Respondent defended himself against the alleged

fabricated statements and allegations he hurled against the Complainant in

violation of his Lawyer's Oath. He emphasized that his allegations were

not fabricated as proven by the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman

dated 16 Muy 2013 which found substantial evidence against the

Complainant for Grave Misconduct and violation of Section 7 (d)of RA No.

GTyS ordering his removal from office. He claimed that this complaint for

disbarment is obviously an act of revenge by the Complainant against his

person.

The Respondent, thru Atty. Judith Z. Luis, attached the following

Documentary Evidence to his Verified Position Paper:

1.) Contract of Lease between him and the PRC dated 112 November

2012;

2.) PRC Disbursement Voucher for the 2-months Security Deposit

amounting to PhP 785,600.00;

3.) PRC Disbursement Voucher for the 2-moths monthly rentals

(October and November 2012) amounting to PhP 785,500.00;

4.) A copy of the paper showing the Complainant's computation as

well as notations in the Ccrnplainant's cw,n handu.riting;

5.) Request for cancellation of unnegotiated Manager's Checks;

6.) CD containing the video of the supposed planned entrapment on 4

December 2012;

7 .) CD containing the video of the entrapment on 5 Decemb er 2412;

8.) Ombudsman Decision dated 16 May 2013;

9.) Letter by the Respondent to DOI Sec. Leila De Lima dated 10 "A toT';

10.) The Complainant's Counter-Affidavit submitted before the

Office of the Ombudsman dated B April 2013;

11.) The Respondent's Complaint-Affidavit dated 3 December 2A12

marked as Exh. " QQ" at the L't Div. of the Sandiganbayan,

12.) Check duplicate for the 2-months rental paid to the llespondent

showing that the Complainant was a signatory to the check.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether or not the llespondent is guilty of violating

Rule 1.01 Canon L and Rule 7.03,Canon 7 of the Lawyers' Professional

Code of Responsibility"

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This Comrnission finds in the negative.

Rule 1,.01-", Canon 1 provides:

"A lawyer shall not engage in unlautful, dishonest, innruoral or

deceitful conduct."

While Rule 7.03, Canon 7 Provides:

" A Lawyer shall not engage in conduct that aduersely reflects on his

fitness to practice laut, nor shall he, whether in public or prittnte life,

behaue in scnndalous manner to the discre.dit of the legal profession."

Stripped to the core, the Complainant's main allegation is that the

Respondent had framed him up to make it appear that he had forced him

to give him bribe money and that the Respondent had deliberately made

false statements under oath in his complaint-affidavits in order to support

the charge of bribery against him. This Commission is not persuaded.

After a painstaking evaluation of the voluminous pieces of eviclence

submitted by both the Complainant and the Respondent, this Commissiotr

finds no basis for the instant complaint.

The videos submitted by both parties speak for itself" Tire application

of the principle of Res ipsa loquitur is apt" The videos are clear enough

evidence showing whom between the parties had indeed cornmittecl an

unlawful and dishonest conduct"

\r r\F',\.

Lastly but more importantly, this Commission takes judicial notice of

the decision rendered by the office of the ombudsmad in the

administrative case against herein Complainant finding him GUILTY of

Grave Misconduct and violating Section 7 (d) of RA No. 6713 and ordered

DISMISSED from public service" Without delving into more details, this

decision bolsters the need to absolve herein Respondent from the instant

charges.

WHEREFORE, in vie=w of the fu.reg*:ing, it is hereby recornlrlenrlerei

that instant complaint be DISMISSED for want of any factual or legal basis.

Respectfully submitted this 11 Muy 2015.

{'*MARIA

Commissioner

' OvtB-R-t2-0453 (NBl-CTD vs Alfredo Yap-Po), 16 May 2013.

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINESBOARD OF GOVERNORS

PASIG CITY

ALFREDO Y. PO,

-vefsus-

Complainant,

CBD CASE NO. 14.4232(ADM.CASE NO. e79S)

ATTY. ERNESTO DAVID L. DELOS SANTOS,

x_- _ I':l:i'::: -__ .-X

NOTICE OF RESOLUTION

Sir/Madam:

I'lease take notice that on June ZtJ,2075 a resolution uras passed by theBoard of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in the above-entided case the original of which is now on file in this office, quote:

RESOLUTION NO. XXI.2015.573CBD Case Na.14-4232(Adm. Case No. 9798)Alfredo Y. Po vs.Atty. Ernesto David L. Delos Santos

RtrSOLtry,D to ADOPT and APPROI.E, as it isherebl ADOPTED and APPROI,'ED, the Report andRecommendation of the lruuest'igattng Commisioner i.n the

aboue-entit/ed case, herein made part oJ this Resolution as

Annex 'A", dnd Jinding the recomruendation ta be ialiysupported fui the eyidence on record and applicable laws, the

case is herebl DISMISSED.

t*=-Ze"**^--"NASSER A. MAROHOMSALIC

Nadonal Secreafll-

-ovef-