OCA CIRCULAR NO. 74-2004, May 27, 2004

For the information and guidance of all concerned, quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 10, 2004
in Administrative Case No. 5438, entitled “D an Joel V. Lim^[*], et al. vs. A try. Edilberto Barcelona”, to wit:

“On May 9, 2001, Dan Joel V. Lim and Richard C. Tan,^[1] both businessmen, filed a complaint for alleged robbery or extortion and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
against Atty. Edilberto Barcelona, a lawyer formerly employed with the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The complaint was
simultaneously filed with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.^[2]

Compiainant Lim alleged that on the first week of August 2000,
respondent phoned him and introduced himself as a lawyer and chief of
the Public Assistance Center, NLRC. Respondent informed him that Ins
employees filed a labor complaint against him in his office and it was necessary for him to see and talk with respondent. From then on
respondent would often call him. Respondent visited him in his office
and told him to settle the case or else his business, Top Gun Billiards,
would be shut down. Lim recalled that on August 14, 2000 , at around
7:30 p.m., respondent again visited his establishment and told him to
settle the case for P20,000.00.

In support of his allegations, Lim submitted a written complaint
of AraeJ E. Ditan and Filipino Ubante; an endorsement letter dated
August 2, 2000 of Atty. Jonathan F. Baligod of the Presidential Action
Center; handwritten calling cards of the respondent; and an affidavit of
desistance executed by Ditan and Ubante.

In their joint affidavit, Ditan and Ubante confirmed the filing
of their complaint against their employer, Lim, and that after some
dialogue, the aforenamed employees executed an affidavit dated August 8,
2000 withdrawing their complaint. According to Ditan and Ubante, they
met the respondent in Top Gun Billiards where the latter often played
billiards. One day, respondent gave them a letter and asked them to sign
it. Since they were busy at that time, they signed it without reading
and understanding its contents. Their employer, Lim, asked what it was
about and they told him that they were just made to sign a document
without their understanding it. They added, they did not have any
complaint against their employer. Despite such withdrawal, respondent
still called Lim threatening the latter that he would pursue the case,
have his establishment closed and he would be jailed if he did not come
up with P20,000.00 as settlement. In the evening of August 14, 2000 ,
respondent reiterated his demand for P20,000.00, again with the threat
of closure of the billiard center and putting Lim in jail.

Complainant Lim said that after his meeting with respondent, he
agreed to give the amount but did not fix any date when payment would be
made, whereupon, respondent gave notice that he would drop in at around
7:00 in the evening, on August 16, 2000, to pick up the money.

Aurora Cruz y Libunao, owner of the carinderia adjacent to Top
Gun Billiards, stated in her sworn statement as well as court testimony
that she met respondent when he ate in her carinderia. She recalled that
the respondent told her that he would shut down the billiard business
if the owner would not talk to him. She also recounted that on August
14, 2000 , at around 8:30 p.m. , she saw on the second floor of the pool
house, the respondent and Lim talking. After a while, the respondent
came down and passed by her carinderia. The respondent then informed her
that he and Lim talked about the P20,000.00 which respondent would give
to his alleged boss in Malacanang. During the hearing, she also
recalled seeing Lim hand money to respondent who in turn put the cash in
his attache case and immediately thereafter, she saw three men arrest
respondent.^[3]

Notably, almost nine months before the filing of his complaint,
or on August 14, 2000 , complainant Lim personally submitted a letter
to the NBI requesting the NBI to investigate respondent Atty. Edilberto
Barcelona.^[4] According to the NBI report, after due investigation, it decided to conduct an entraptment operation. On August 15, 2000 , Special Investigator Marvin de Semil, sent nine five hundred peso bills and five one hundred peso . bills for fluorescent powder dusting to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division. Further, the NBI reported that thru the NBI Identification and Records Division, it found no record of such person named Edilberto Barcelona.

The NBI report also stated that on August 16, 2000 , Lim
informed the NBI operatives that at around 7:00 p.m. respondent would
drop by his pool house to collect the money. At around 6:30 r p.m. r the
operatives went to the pool house and strategically positioned
themselves and posed as pool players. At about 7:20 p.m. , respondent
arrived, sat on a plastic chair and talked to complainant Lim. At around
7:30 p.m. , Lim handed the marked money to the respondent who, in turn,
received it. While respondent was counting the money and about to place
it inside his bag, he was immediately arrested. The respondent
initially resisted and tried to create scandal but was later pacified.

The NBI averred that the respondent was informed of his
constitutional rights and was brought to the NBI office where he was
booked and fingerprinted. In his fingerprint chart, the respondent
indicated that he was a government Sawyer and assigned at the office of
the Chief, Public Assistance Center , NLRC, Banawe, Quezon City . He
showed his identification card. Later he was brought to the Forensic
Chemistry Division for ultraviolet examination. The certification issued
by Forensic Chemist Loren G. Janobas stated that there were “yellow
fluorescent specks and smudges” on the back and palm of the left and
right hand of the respondent. On August 17, 2000 , the NBI turned over
respondent to the City Prosecutor of Manila who eventually indicted him
for robbery/extortion.^[5]

Complainant Richard Tan, owner of Tai Hing Glass Supply, a
co-signee in the herein complaint, executed a sworn statement dated
August 16, 2000 . In it he alleged that he went to the Criminal
Intelligence Division, Intelligence Service of the NBI to complain about
respondent Barcelona . He said that sometime during the last week of
July, respondent called him, introduced himself and informed him that
one of his employees filed an illegal dismissal case against him. He
remembered that before respondent’s call, he had suspended an employee,
Bryan Tellen, for leaving his workplace without permission. Tellen
received several warning letters from him regarding his misdemeanors.
Tan remembered that Tellen once hinted that he knew someone in the
Department of Labor, who turned out to be herein respondent, Atty.
Barcelona. Before Tan sent his accountant, Ditas Gutierrez, to
respondent’s office to represent him, he told her a copy of Tellen’s
suspension letter and to inform respondent that Tellen had not been
dismissed. When Gutierrez return, she told him that the respondent
wanted him to pay his employee. She added that respondent did not give
her any copy of a formal complaint on the alleged illegal dismissal.
After two days, according to Tan, respondent went to his office, showed
him an identification card and gave him a handwritten calling card.
Respondent told him to pay his employee P20,000.00 to P30,000.00,
otherwise respondent would go on with the filing of the illegal
dismissal case. When he said he did not have that kind of money,
respondent lowered the amount to P15,000.00. Complainant Tan ^added
that when he gave respondent the money, the latter promised to take care
of the illegal dismissal complaint. On July 29, 2000, according to
Tan, respondent came to see him again. Respondent appeared drunk and
told Tan to go to the respondent’s office because a problem regarding
the case arose. Tan stated that before respondent left,
respondent invited his employees to a game of billiards. Tan said he
did not consent to the employees playing because they had work. On
July 31, 2000, respondent went to him a third time and asked for an
additional P10,000.00 allegedly for his employee, Tellen> since the
P15,000.00 Tan gave earlier was for respondent only. After a few more
visits by respondent, Tan finally told the respondent to show him the
formal complaint and he would just get himself a lawyer.^[6]

The Joint Affidavit of Arrest, signed on August 17, 2000 by Agent
Don R. Hernandez, SI Felix O. Senora and SI Marvin de Jemil, cited
complainant Tan’s allegations,^[7]

Respondent Atry. Barcelona filed his Comment^[8]
on December 10, 2001 , praying for the dismissal of the complaint
against him. Respondent, in his defense, alleges that he normally played
billiards at the Top Gun Billiard Center where he would drop by from
his office before going to his residence; that when certain employees of
the billiard center learned that he was a lawyer and Chief of the
Public Assistance Center of the NLRC, they confided in him their
grievance against then employer, Lim, for alleged violation of labor
laws, there respondent gave them assistance; that with the proper
complaint and required documentation accomplished, respondent’s office
scheduled the case for a dialogue- conference between the complaining
workers and their employer; that on instigation and coercion of
complainant Lira, respondent became a victim of theft, billiard
hustling, swindling and syndicated gambling on August 9, 2000; that on
or about August 9, 2000, respondent filed a complaint for theft of
cellphone and pack of cigarettes, billiard hustling, syndicated
gambling, and swindling against Lim and his three workers, eventually
docketed as IS. No. 38251 to53.^[9]

Respondent’s Comment narrated his version on how the money
allegedly was given to him. According to the respondent, on August 16,
2000, at about 3 p.m., he received a phone call from complainant him informing him that Ian Gonvan,^[10] one of the accused in IS. NO. 38251,
admitted taking his cellphone and was willing and ready to return it at
around 7 p.m. , at the Top Gun Billiard Center. It was the birthday of
his daughter that was why he took the day off from office. At about 7:30
p.m. , he arrived at the billiard hall and there found Lim with one of
his complaining workers, fixing the lamp of one of the billiard tables.
He did not see Gonvan within the premises so he sat and watched the
billiard games going on while he waited. After about 15 minutes Lim sat
beside him and told him that Gonvan could no longer return the cellphone
and instead Gonvan entrusted Lim with the equivalent value in cash.
According to respondent, Lim persistently whispered to him to accept and
count the wad of paper money Lim pulled out. According to respondent,
he consistently refused to touch the money and he insisted, ‘Gusto ko
munang makaharap ang sinasabi mong si Gumban,”^[11]continuously
refusing to accept, much less count, the offered wad of money,
Respondent added that when Lim realized that he could not be prevailed
upon to accept it, he placed and inserted the wad of money in the open
side pocket of respondent’s shoulder bag that respondent normally
carried, again pleading to respondent that he should count the money.
Respondent added that Lim’s behavior was rude and intimidating so much
so that respondent protested such rudeness. But respondent said while he
was trying to retrieve the wad of money to throw it back to Lim, about
five or seven burly men accosted respondent and handcuffed him over his
vehement protestations.^[12]

On Tan’s complaint, respondent declared that he never demanded
nor received money from Tan, and Tan’s accusations are but a product of
the former’s fertile imagination as leverage because he actively
assisted a complaining worker of Tan.^[13]Respondent added that a formal labor complaint has been filed against Tan.^[14]

Eventually, we referred the complaint against Atty. Barcelona to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report
and recommendation. Its report with recommendation is now before us. We
shall now proceed to the merits of the complaint.

Respondent’s version seeks to discredit the NBI report to the
effect that respondent accepted the marked money which Lim handed to
him. His version, however, fails to explain why he was found positive
for yellow fluorescent specks and smudges in his dorsal and palmar
aspects of the left and right hands by the Forensic Department of the
NBI.

Respondent alleges that the alleged briber}’ or extortion is a
mere concoction of complainant and as leverage for the cases against Lim
and Tan.

Based on the-NBI report, this case appears to be an entrapment
operation. Notably, Arty. Don Hernandez and his team of arresting
officers confirm the entrapment operation against respondent on the
basis of complainant Lim’s call for NBI assistance.

While respondent alleges that complainant Lim merely concocted a
charge of extortion against him in retaliation to a complaint for theft
which he had filed, it may be noted that the complaint for theft was
not directed against Lim but only against his workers who were accused
by respondent. Hence, there appears to be no strong reason for Lim to
resort to a counter-charge for extortion against respondent.

The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP concluded that it is
highly improbable that the NBI could be misled by complainant Lim into
conducting an entrapment operation against respondent, if there was no
merit to his complaint against respondent. From a reading of the NBI
Report as well as the documents attached to said report, it is evident
that the NBI considered the merits of Lim’s complaint of extortion
against respondent. Finding it worth pursuing, the NBI conducted an
entrapment operation against respondent. On the basis of the entrapment
operation conducted by the NBI, respondent was caught in the act, so to
speak, of attempted extortion. Respondent was brought to the City
Prosecutor of Manila for inquest and the appropriate complaint for
Robbery /Extortion was filed against respondent.^[15]

Based on its own evaluation and the NBI Report, the’
Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline
recommended the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for a
period of two years.^[16]

In the final resolution dated September 27, 2003, the Board of
Governors of the IBP imposed the penalty of disbarment for the reason
that respondent in fact attempted to extort money as Chief of the Public
Assistance Center of the NLRC to threaten/coerce Lim and that no less
than the NBI caught him in the act of receiving and counting the money
extorted from him.^[17]

The grounds for disbarment or suspension of an
attorney are, (1) deceit; (2) malpractice or other £ross misconduct in
office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (6) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (?) willfully
appearing as an attorney for a part}’ without authority.^[18]

The NBI found that respondent’s hands had yellow fluorescent
specks and smudges with which the money used for the entrapment of the
respondent had been powdered. We find no reason to doubt the NBI report.
Also, we see no basis to overturn the presumption that the NBI had done its duty regularly.

Respondent would make us believe that the specks and smudges of
yellow fluorescent were in his hands because Lim offered him what was
allegedly the payment for the stolen cellphone by a certain Gonvan.
Regrettably, there is no corroboration from Gonvan nor anyone elge on
this matter. Thus, respondent’s stoiy appears to us entirely
self-serving.

We had held previously that if a lawyer’s misconduct in the
discharge of his official duties as government official is of such a
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground.^[19]
More significantly, lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private
practice. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely- condemned in a
lawyer who holds a responsible public office.^[20]
Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system. Extortion by a
government lawyer, an outright violation of the law, calls for the
corresponding grave sanctions. With the aforesaid rule a high standard
of integrity is demanded of a government lawyer as compared to a private
practitioner because the delinquency of a government lawyer erodes the
people’s trust and confidence in the government.

Needless to say, lawyers owe it to the court and to society not
to stir up litigations. Employees of the billiards hall, Ditan and
Ubante, swore that respondent public officer encouraged complainant
Lim’s workers to file a case against the latter. Rule 1.03 of the same
Code states thai a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt and that no less
than the NBI caught him in the government.

Needless to say, lawyers owe it to the court and to society not
to stir up litigations. Employees of the billiards hall, Ditan and
Ubante, swore that respondent public officer encouraged complainant
Lim’s workers to file a case against (he latter. Rule 1.03 of the same
Code states thai a lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.

Noteworthy, as an Attorney IV and Chief of the Public
Assistance Center of the NLRC respondent failed to observe prudence by
hanging out and playing in the billiard hall. By so doing, he exposed
himself unnecessarily to certain elements and situations which could
compromise his official position and his status as a lawyer.

Time and again, we have declared that the practice of law is a
noble profession. It is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who
are competent intellectually, academically and morally. A lawyer must
at all times conduct himself, especially in his dealings with his
clients and the public at large, with honest and integrity in a manner
beyond reproach. He must faithfully perform his duties to society, to the
bar, to the courts and to his clients. A violation of the high
standards of the legal profession subjects the lawyer to administrative
sanctions which includes suspension and disbarment.^[21]More
importantly, possession of good moral character must be continuous as a
requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice;
otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege.^[22]

Indeed, the primary objective of administrative cases against
lawyers is not only to punish and discipline the erring individual
lawyers, but also to safeguard the administration of justice by
protecting the courts and the public from the misconduct of lawyers and
to remove from the legal profession persons whose utter disregard of the
lawyer’s oath has proven them unfit to continue discharging the trust
reposed in them as members of the bar.^[23]
These pronouncements gain practical significance in this case,
considering that respondent is a senior lawyer of the NLRC. It bears
stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe
fidelity to the public service, a public trust As such, government
lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as
their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public.
eye.^[24]

As a lawyer, who was also a public officer, respondent miserably
failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal
profession.

In Montano v. IBP,^[25]this
Court said that only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously
affects the standing and character of the lawyer may disbarment be
imposed as a penalty 7. In the instant case, the Court is convinced that
the evidence against respondent is clear and convincing. He is
administratively liable for corrupt activity, deceit and gross
misconduct. As correctly held by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, he should not only be suspended from
the practice of law but disbarred.

WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Edilberto Barcelona is fond
administratively guilty of corrupt activity, deceit, and gross
misconduct and is hereby ordered DISBARRED. Let his name be stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately, and this resolution
spread in his record in this Court and circulated to all courts in the
Philippines .

SO ORDERED.”

Copy of the decision was received by respondent on March 15, 2004

__27__May 2004.

name in the records is “Villagracia”. His middle initial in the title is “L.” Joel is also spelled as “Jowel”

elsewhere in the records.

 ^[1] In the little only Lim was named complainant, however, the complaint, was
co-signed by Richard C. Tan, owner

of an establishment also allegedly a victim of Barcelona . Lim and Tan
in most of the records are complaints,

except in an Order dated August 20, 2002 of the Commission of Bar
Discipline; in a letter dated

October 10, 2002 of the Supreme Court Clerk of Court forwarding the case
to the IBP and in the resolution of this Court where only Lim was
mentioned as complainant.

 ^[2] Rollo,

p. 1,273.

 ^[3] Id., pp. 1-3.

 ^[4] TSN, 27 January 2003 , pp. 163-174.

 ^[5] Rollo,

p. 74.

 ^[6] Id.at 105-107.

 ^[7] Id. at 94.

 ^[8] Id. at 19-23.

 ^[9] Id. at 137.

 ^[10] Gurnban in some parts of the records.

 ^[11] “I would like first to meet face to face the cue you are calling as Gurnban.”

 ^[12] Rollo, pp. 138-139.

 ^[13] Id. at 21.

 ^[14] Id. at 145.  

 ^[15] Id. at
283-284, The quantum of evidence required in a criminal case, however,
differs from that of administrative proceedings requiring only
substantial evidence.

 ^[16] Id., p. 284.

 ^[17] Id., p. 272.

 ^[18] National Bureau of Investigation v. Reyes, A. M. no. MTJ-97-1120, 21 February 2000, 326 SCRA 109, 120.

 ^[19] Gonzales-Austria v.
Abaya A.M. No. R-705-RTJ, 23 August 1989, 176 SCRA 634, 649; Dinsay v.
Cioco, AC, No. 2995, 27 November 1996, 264 SCRA 703, 706; Coll antes v.
Kenomeron/AC, No, 3056, 16 August 1991, 200 SCRA584, 589.

 ^[20] Macoco v. Diaz, 70 Phil, 97, 98 (1940).

 ^[21] Re:
Administrative Case No. 44 of the RTC, Branch IV, Tagbilaran City ,
Against. Atty, Samuel C. Occeña, AC. No. 2841, 3 July 2002 , 383
3CRA636, 651-652. 22

 ^[22] Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio, 388 Phil, 691, 705 (2000)

 ^[23] Rivera v. Corral, AC. No. 354S, 4 July 2002 , 384 SCRA 1, 9.

 ^[24] Igoy v. Atty. Soriano, 419 Phil. 346, 359 (2001).

 ^[25] AC. No. 4215, 21 May 2001, 358 SCRA 1, 9, Sabumido v. Madrono, AC. No. 4497, 16 September 2001, 366 SCRA 1,7.