G.R. No. 143085 - People vs. Borbon y Boter

Case Summary (G.R. No. 143085)

Petitioner

Norma F. Flores (on behalf of herself and her son Mark), who filed a complaint alleging deceit, gross misconduct, failure to perform appellate duties, and solicitation of money for an alleged bribe to Justices of the Court of Appeals.

Respondent

Atty. William F. Delos Santos, accused of soliciting and receiving money under false pretenses, failing to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief as promised, not complying with the Supreme Court’s and IBP’s orders, and previously suspended in a separate disciplinary matter.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Complaint received by the Office of the Bar Confidant: September 5, 2016. Supreme Court Notice requiring comment: November 16, 2016. IBP Investigating Commissioner report and recommendation: record entries. IBP Board resolution (ordering return of P160,000): December 15, 2019; IBP denial of respondent’s motion for reconsideration: March 13, 2021. Supreme Court decision (final disciplinary disposition): February 21, 2023.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Disciplinary authority grounded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Rules of Court (Section 27, Rule 138). Relevant norms: Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons and Rules cited by the Court: Canon 1 Rules 1.01–1.02; Canon 10 Rule 10.01; Canon 13; Canon 15 Rules 15.05–15.07). Standard for disbarment and suspension under Rule 138 quoted by the Court.

Factual Background: Engagement and Initial Payments

After Mark’s conviction, Norma engaged Atty. Delos Santos within the appeal period. The respondent requested an initial acceptance fee of P20,000 and P5,000 for document requests, which Norma paid. Additional fees were later requested and paid; by the time of a July 9, 2015 visit to the respondent’s residence, Norma had paid a total of P77,500.

Alleged Scheme to Bribe Court of Appeals Justices

On July 18, 2015, the respondent reportedly told Norma that P160,000 was required to “bribe” Justices of the Court of Appeals’ Fifteenth Division to secure Mark’s acquittal, explaining a distribution of the amount (P10,000 to a runner and P150,000 divided among three Justices). Relying on these assurances, Norma borrowed money and deposited a total of P160,000 in three transfers to Banco De Oro account No. 4760100442 registered to respondent’s wife on August 5, August 15, and October 5, 2015.

Appellate Outcome and Counsel’s Failures

The Court of Appeals’ Fifteenth Division affirmed Mark’s conviction on July 25, 2016. Norma learned that respondent failed to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief as he had promised. When confronted, respondent claimed arrangements had been made but the result was unexplained; he promised to return the money and prepare a motion for reconsideration.

Complaint, Notices, and Respondent’s Noncompliance

Norma and Mark filed a complaint asserting respondent’s dishonest and deceitful conduct, negligent performance of duties, and prior disciplinary history. The Supreme Court issued a Notice of Resolution requiring comment; respondent failed to comply. After dispensing with his comment due to noncompliance, the Court referred the matter to the IBP for investigation. The respondent likewise failed to attend IBP conferences and neglected required pleadings despite notice.

IBP Investigation and Recommendation

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent liable for gross misconduct, citing his failure to comply with Supreme Court and IBP orders and treating his prior suspension as aggravating. The IBP Board approved the investigator’s report with modification, ordering the respondent to return P160,000 with legal interest. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration claiming the amount was attorney’s fees; the IBP denied the motion.

Legal Standard for Gross Misconduct and Burden of Proof

The Court applied the doctrine that gross misconduct involves willful transgression of established rules, dereliction of duty, or deceitful acts implying wrongful intent rather than mere error. The burden rests on complainants to establish misconduct by substantial evidence — evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Court’s Analysis of Evidence and Credibility

The Court found that Norma’s affidavit and the submitted bank deposit slips established the P160,000 transfers to account of respondent’s wife. Respondent’s denial, raised in his motion for reconsideration, was unaccompanied by corroborating evidence; the Court treated such denial as an intrinsically weak defense unless supported by clear evidence of non-culpability. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Court’s notice and to comply with IBP procedures further lent credibility to the complaint and suggested tacit admission.

Violations of Ethical Duties Identified by the Court

The Court concluded that respondent’s conduct violated multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1 (prohibition on unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct and counseling/abetting law-defying activities), Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 (candor, fairness, good faith to the court), Canon 13 (rely on merits and avoid impropriety influencing the court), and Rules 15.05–15.07 of Canon 15 (candor to clients, honest assessment of case merits, and prohibition against claiming influence over public officials).

Aggravating Circumstances: Disobedience a

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 143085)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainants: Norma F. Flores (mother) and Mark Sherwin F. Flores (son), who filed a Complaint dated August 2, 2016 (received by the Office of the Bar Confidant on September 5, 2016).
Respondent: Atty. William F. Delos Santos (Atty. Delos Santos).
Underlying criminal conviction: Mark was convicted of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 11-288297 and 11-288298 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 23.
Administrative history: The Supreme Court issued a Notice of Resolution dated November 16, 2016 requiring Atty. Delos Santos to comment; his failure to comply resulted in the case being referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.
IBP proceedings: Investigating Commissioner Sherwin C. De Joya found respondent liable for gross misconduct and recommended disbarment; the IBP Board of Governors approved with modification the Report and Recommendation on December 15, 2019, ordering the return of P160,000.00 with legal interest to the complainants.
Respondent’s post-IBP action: Atty. Delos Santos filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration denying the allegations and asserting that P160,000.00 represented attorney’s fees; the IBP Board denied his Motion in its Resolution dated March 13, 2021.
Ultimate forum and disposition: The Supreme Court, after review, found respondent guilty of gross misconduct, disbarred him, ordered restitution with interest, and directed other administrative notifications; Decision authored by Justice Dimaampao, EN BANC, dated February 21, 2023.

Factual Background and Chronology

Time of engagement: Norma engaged Atty. Delos Santos within the period to file an appeal for her son Mark.
Initial payments: Atty. Delos Santos requested P20,000.00 as an initial acceptance fee and P5,000.00 for document requests; Norma immediately paid these amounts.
Subsequent collections: Atty. Delos Santos asked for additional payments on several occasions; by July 9, 2015, Norma stated the total collected from her amounted to P77,500.00.
Entry of appearance and further demands: On July 9, 2015, when Norma visited respondent’s residence in Bacoor City, Cavite, respondent informed her he had submitted a Formal Entry of Appearance before the Court of Appeals on July 8, 2015, and again requested additional fees.
July 18, 2015 solicitation for bribe: Atty. Delos Santos allegedly coaxed Norma to produce an additional P160,000.00 to “bribe” Justices of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, purportedly stating (in Tagalog) that she should prepare PHP 160,000.00, describing allocations for a “taga-lakad” and for the Justices (PHP 10,000.00 to the runner and PHP 150,000.00 as PHP 50,000.00 per Justice), and emphasizing his connections inside to expedite the process while minimizing the apparent quantity of drugs involved.
Fundraising and deposits: Relying on respondent’s assurances, Norma borrowed from friends and relatives and deposited various sums totalling P160,000.00 on August 5, 2015, August 15, 2015, and October 5, 2015 into Banco De Oro Savings Account No. 4760100442 under the name of respondent’s wife, Reinalyn B. Delos Santos.
Post-deposit assurances: Upon receipt of the P160,000.00, respondent allegedly reassured Norma that the funds would be delivered to his insider or “facilitator” within the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals.
Disposition of appeal and discovery of failures: The Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed Mark’s conviction in a ruling dated July 25, 2016. Norma discovered that respondent failed to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief despite having committed to do so.
Respondent’s post-ruling conduct: When confronted, respondent purportedly said he “did not know what happened” despite prior promises and arrangements; he then promised to return the money within a week and to prepare a Motion for Reconsideration.

Allegations of Misconduct

Deceit and dishonesty: Norma and Mark accused respondent of dishonest and deceitful conduct, including knowingly rendering illegal advice about bribing Justices and soliciting money for that purpose.
Neglect and dereliction: Respondent was accused of gross remissness in performance of his duties as counsel, specifically the failure to file an Appellant’s Reply Brief and failure to keep complainants informed about the appeal’s status.
Reprehensible pattern: Complainants noted respondent’s prior suspension by the Court in another disciplinary case (Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332-342 (2014)), arguing that his present conduct exhibited lack of remorse and a recurring pattern of misconduct.
Requested penalty: Complainants implored the Court to disbar respondent.

Evidence Adduced and Court’s Assessment of Proof

Complainants’ proof: Norma’s affidavit and submitted bank deposit slips showing various deposits totalling P160,000.00 into the savings account of respondent’s wife were admitted and relied upon by the Court.
Respondent’s response: In his Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, respondent emphatically denied inducing Norma to deposit P160,000.00 for bribery, asserting the amount represented attorney’s fees; he failed to explain his prolonged silence or failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s Notice dated November 16, 2016, and with IBP orders and mandatory conferences.
Court’s evaluation of evidentiary weight: The Court found Norma’s clear and categorical narration more convincing than respondent’s denials, stressing the legal principle that denial is weak absent strong evidence of non-culpability and describing respondent’s failure to comment as a tacit admission that lends credence t