G.R. No. 205652 - Procter and Gamble Asia Pte. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

By Board Resolution No. 1 dated March 7, 1998, the SOCSARGEN IBP Chapter referred to the IBP Board of Governors the alleged anomaly involving RTC Judge Teodoro Dizon, Jr. and Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.
On March 24, 1998, IBP Chapter President transmitted the referral and attached affidavits to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
OCA docketed the matter against Judge Dizon, Jr. as AM No. RTJ-98-1426. In its January 31, 2006 per curiam decision, the Court dismissed Judge Dizon, Jr. from service and, by its October 21, 1998 resolution, directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to investigate Atty. Barrios, Jr.

Spouses Manuel C. Rafols, Jr. and Lolita B. Rafols filed a joint affidavit (March 3, 1998) alleging that Judge Dizon, Jr. demanded money for a favorable ruling in Civil Case No. 6209, and that Atty. Barrios, Jr. facilitated meeting and communicated the demand.
Affidavits of Larry Sevilla (March 11), Allan Rafols (March 16) and Daisy Rafols (March 16) corroborated the spouses’ narrative.
Atty. Erlinda C. Verzosa (Deputy Clerk and Bar Confidant) forwarded the materials to OCA, which in turn furnished the OBC with the complaint for investigation by resolution dated October 21, 1998.

The complainants paid Atty. Barrios, Jr. ₱15,000 as counsel’s acceptance fee in Civil Case No. 6209.
On December 22, 1997, Atty. Barrios introduced Manuel Rafols to Judge Dizon, Jr. at East Royal Hotel; the judge demanded ₱150,000 for a favorable decision, accepted ₱50,000 on that day and an additional ₱80,000 on December 24.
On January 20 and 22, 1998, further demands for ₱30,000 were made; the complainants ultimately delivered the money at Doña Soledad Estate.
Fearing bias, they later went public through media exposé; subsequent attempts by respondent and judge to appease them failed.

In his verified comment (March 22, 2006), respondent admitted introducing Manuel to Judge Dizon but claimed he stayed away from the conversation. He asserted that Manuel gave him ₱2,000 as token of appreciation.
Respondent acknowledged receipt of ₱80,000 and retention of ₱30,000 per the judge’s instruction as a “token of friendship.”
He contended the amounts were loans for the judge’s swimming pool and watch redemption, not bribes; he also recounted delivering gifts and notes from the judge, and seeking NBI/PNP assistance.
Respondent denied knowledge of any quid pro quo between judge and complainants and refused to notarize an affidavit at the judge’s request on January 27, 1998.

In its May 15, 2008 Report, OBC found the respondent’s denials implausible and held that by arranging meetings and handling money he knowingly abetted the judge’s extortion.
The OBC recommended a three-year suspension from practice of law, warning that future misconduct would be dealt with more severely.

Whether Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. knowingly participated in the judge’s extortion of his own clients, thus committing gross misconduct warranting disciplinary action.
What penalty is appropriate for respondent’s proven violation of his duties and ethical obligations as an attorney.