Catalan, Jr. vs. Silvosa

Facts:

Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan, Jr. v. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa, A.C. No. 7360, July 24, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. This administrative complaint arose from three separate allegations by Atty. Catalan against Atty. Silvosa: (1) that Silvosa, after acting as a public prosecutor in a case, appeared later as private counsel in the same matter in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (2) that Silvosa attempted to bribe Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio (Pros. Toribio) for P30,000; and (3) that Silvosa had been convicted by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 27776 for direct bribery.

As to antecedent events, Atty. Silvosa served as Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Bukidnon and appeared as public prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 10256-00, People of the Philippines v. SPO2 Elmor Esperon y Murillo, et al. (the Esperon case), in which Atty. Catalan was a private complainant. Displeased with Silvosa’s prosecution, Catalan asked the Provincial Prosecutor to relieve him; Provincial Prosecutor Guillermo Ching later did so. The trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused on November 16, 2005; on November 23, 2005 Silvosa, now appearing as private counsel for an accused, filed a motion to reinstate bail pending finality.

Concerning the second allegation, Pros. Toribio executed an affidavit dated June 14, 1999 recounting that Silvosa had offered her P30,000 to reconsider findings in a separate frustrated-murder matter involving Catalan’s brother. Toribio testified before IBP Commissioner Dennis A.B. Funa (Comm. Funa) that the offer occurred while she was still a public prosecutor.

For the third allegation, the records showed that the Sandiganbayan convicted Silvosa on May 18, 2006 in Criminal Case No. 27776 for direct bribery (the decision’s dispositive portion sentencing him to imprisonment and a fine was admitted into evidence). Silvosa admitted his conviction and that he was under probation, but argued the conviction related to his capacity as a public officer and, he claimed, did not amount to moral turpitude warranting disbarment.

Procedurally, Comm. Funa issued a Report and Recommendation (Sept. 15, 2008) finding Silvosa guilty only of the first charge (violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) and recommending a reprimand. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors first modified the recommendation to a six-month suspension (Resolution dated Oct. 9, 2008) and later increased the suspension to two years (R...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did Atty. Silvosa violate Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by appearing as private counsel in a matter in which he had previously intervened as a public prosecutor?
• Was the allegation that Atty. Silvosa attempted to bribe Pros. Toribio proven sufficiently to warrant discipline?
• Does the Sandiganbayan conviction for direct bribery constitute a ground for disbarment and may the Supreme Court rely on that final cr...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)