G.R. No. L-3676 - Vasquez vs. Li Seng Giap

In 1985, respondent Atty. Victor C. Avecilla and Mr. Louis C. Biraogo filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883, a law mandating a presidential snap election on 7 February 1986.
The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 72954 and later consolidated with nine other similar petitions.
On 19 December 1985, the Court En banc issued a resolution dismissing the consolidated petitions, thereby upholding the validity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883.
Shortly after the resolution became final (8 January 1986), the rollo (the official file containing the case records) of G.R. No. 72954 was entrusted to the Court’s Judicial Records Office (JRO) for safekeeping.

On 14 July 2003, respondent Atty. Avecilla and Mr. Biraogo sent a letter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. requesting documents related to the expenditure of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
They claimed an interest in the JDF by alleging that their contributions were made through the docket and legal fees paid as petitioners in G.R. No. 72954.
Responding to this request, Chief Justice Davide, on 28 July 2003, instructed Atty. Teresita Dimaisip, then Chief of the JRO, to retrieve the rollo of G.R. No. 72954 to verify the claim.
On 30 July 2003, Atty. Dimaisip reported that the rollo could not be found in the archives. Further investigation using the tracer card revealed that the rollo had been borrowed from the JRO on 13 September 1991 and never returned.
The tracer card indicated that the respondent, acting through Atty. Salvador Banzon, was the borrower of the rollo.
Subsequent inquiries led Chief Justice Davide on 31 July 2003 to direct Atty. Dimaisip to secure both an explanation regarding how the rollo was borrowed and measures to ensure its return.
A memorandum from Atty. Dimaisip dated 13 August 2003 clarified that at the time of the borrowing, the respondent was employed as part of the legal staff of retired Justice Emilio A. Gancayco, a position that enabled him to gain confidential access to court materials.
The rollo was eventually returned on 18 August 2003, almost twelve years after it was taken.

On 22 September 2003, Chief Justice Davide directed the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) to study the incident and provide recommendations.
The OCAT, in a memorandum dated 20 November 2003, opined that the respondent could be administratively liable as a lawyer and member of the bar for taking the rollo without proper authority, noting that the borrowing was not for official purposes but appears to serve a personal agenda.
Even though the respondent was no longer an employee of the Court at the time of the investigation, he remained subject to professional disciplinary sanctions as a lawyer.
On 9 December 2003, the Court En banc issued a resolution directing the respondent to show cause why he should not face administrative sanctions.
The respondent submitted his Respectful Explanation on 21 January 2004. In his explanation:

He denied borrowing or authorizing the borrowing of the rollo, attributing the act to another person whose signature (Atty. Banzon’s) appeared on the tracer card.
He asserted that the rollo inadvertently ended up in his personal box of papers following Justice Gancayco’s retirement and that there was no intentional delay in its return.

The OCAT found these defenses unsatisfactory in its report dated 12 April 2004.
On 1 June 2004, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) was tapped to conduct a formal investigation, which included hearings involving the respondent, Atty. Banzon, Atty. Dimaisip, and Atty. Pablo Gancayco.
On 6 August 2007, the respondent reiterated his original defenses before the OBC.
Finally, on 13 October 2009, the OBC submitted its report and recommendation, finding the respondent fully accountable and recommending a suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.

Whether the respondent is truly responsible for taking out the rollo of G.R. No. 72954, as indicated by the tracer card that bears his name and Atty. Banzon’s signature.

Whether the act of taking judicial records outside the court premises without proper authorization constitutes an administratively punishable offense.
Whether the respondent’s action in using his confidential position to secure access to the rollo amounts to abuse of his office for personal purposes.

Whether imposing administrative sanctions on the respondent, a lawyer and member of the bar not currently employed by the Court, is justified.
Whether the recommended penalty of suspension for one (1) year should be maintained or modified in light of mitigating circumstances.