Title
Brion, Jr. vs. Brillantes, Jr.
Case
A.C. No. 5305
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2003
Atty. Brillantes violated a Supreme Court order by accepting a consultancy post at LWUA, performing duties akin to employment, and circumventing his disqualification from government service, leading to a one-year suspension and fine.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 5305)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • Complainant Marciano Brion, Jr. filed a petition for disbarment against respondent Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr. for allegedly violating a lawful order of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 (Lupo Almodiel Atienza v. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr.).
    • In the Atienza case, the Court dismissed Brillantes from service as a judge due to Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety, with a prohibition against reappointment in any government agency, including government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs).
  2. Alleged Violation:

    • Despite the Court’s order, Brillantes accepted a legal consultancy post at the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) from 1998 to 2000.
    • He was also appointed as the 6th member of the Board of Directors of the Urdaneta (Pangasinan) Water District.
    • The consultancy agreement was later renewed as a Special Consultancy Agreement.
  3. Complainant’s Claims:

    • Brion argued that the consultancy agreements were a ploy to circumvent the Court’s prohibition.
    • Brillantes allegedly enjoyed privileges akin to a regular employee, including:
      • Issuance of LWUA properties (e.g., cellular phone).
      • Official travel and supervision of LWUA employees.
      • Membership in sensitive LWUA committees (e.g., Prequalification, Bids, and Awards Committee).
      • Receipt of honoraria and a Productivity Incentive Bonus in 1999.
  4. Respondent’s Defense:

    • Brillantes admitted to the consultancy contracts but argued that under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1993, consultancy services are not considered government employment and are not covered by Civil Service rules.
    • He claimed his designation as the 6th member of the Urdaneta Water District Board was not a reappointment but a temporary designation.
    • He also stated that the consultancy contract was pre-terminated in April 2000 and never renewed.

Issue:

  1. Whether Atty. Francisco Brillantes, Jr. violated the Supreme Court’s order in A.M. No. MTJ-92-706 by accepting a consultancy post at LWUA and performing duties akin to a government employee.
  2. Whether the consultancy agreements were a circumvention of the Court’s prohibition against Brillantes’ reappointment in any government agency or GOCC.
  3. Whether Brillantes’ actions constitute deceitful conduct, gross misconduct, and willful disobedience to a lawful court order, rendering him unfit to remain a member of the Bar.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.