Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26768)
Facts:
Dan Joel V. Lim and Richard C. Tan, Complainants, v. Atty. Edilberto Barcelona, Respondent, A.C. No. 5438, 469 Phil. 1; 101 OG No. 52, 9089 (December 26, 2005), the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainants Lim and Tan, both businessmen who operated public establishments, alleged that Atty. Edilberto Barcelona, then identifying himself as Chief of the Public Assistance Center of the NLRC, repeatedly demanded money from them in exchange for not pursuing or for withdrawing labor complaints filed (or purportedly to be filed) against them. Lim alleged that Barcelona threatened to close his business and jail him unless he settled for P20,000; Lim reported the matter to the NBI, which prepared and executed an entrapment operation and arrested Barcelona on August 16, 2000 after Lim handed marked bills to him. The NBI forensic chemistry report showed yellow fluorescent specks on Barcelona’s hands; Barcelona was turned over to the City Prosecutor and indicted for robbery/extortion.
Lim and Tan filed a complaint against Barcelona simultaneously with the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline investigated: affidavits of Lim, Tan, employees Ditan and Ubante, a carinderia owner’s testimony, the NBI report (including the forensic findings), and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest were part of the record. Barcelona submitted a Comment (Dec. 10, 2001) denying extortion, claiming instead that Lim placed the cash into his bag and that he was a victim of theft and other offenses for which he had filed separate administrative complaints against Lim’s employees.
The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a two‑year suspension, but the IBP Board of Governors, after evaluating the evidence and the NBI report, imposed disbarment on September 27, 2003, finding Barcelona guilty of attempted extortion, deceit and gross misconduct. The matte...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence presented sufficient to hold respondent administratively liable for corrupt activity, deceit, and gross misconduct?
- If liable, is disbarment the appropriate penalty for respondent's...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)