Title
Re: Avecilla
Case
A.C. No. 6683
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2011
A lawyer borrowed and retained a Supreme Court case rollo for 12 years without authorization, leading to a six-month suspension for violating professional ethics.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6683)

Background of the Case

In 1985, Atty. Avecilla, alongside Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the aforementioned law, which was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19 December 1985. The rollo of this case was stored for safekeeping within the Court’s Judicial Records Office (JRO) until it went missing when borrowed on 13 September 1991.

Circumstances of the Borrowing

On 28 July 2003, Atty. Avecilla and Mr. Biraogo requested documents concerning the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF). Following this request, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide discovered that the rollo had been borrowed by Atty. Avecilla but not returned. After an extensive search, it was revealed that Atty. Avecilla had borrowed the rollo through a colleague, Atty. Salvador Banzon, yet it remained unaccounted for until it was turned in by Atty. Avecilla on 18 August 2003.

Administrative Findings and Recommendations

Following the submission of reports detailing the incident, the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT) found that Atty. Avecilla abused his confidential position to illegally retain the rollo for nearly twelve years. Though he was no longer an employee of the Supreme Court, the Court found it appropriate to conduct an administrative inquiry against him as a member of the bar. The OCAT recommended administrative charges against Atty. Avecilla due to the unauthorized borrowing of court records.

Respondent’s Defense

In his explanation, Atty. Avecilla denied borrowing the rollo, instead suggesting that someone else may have acted without his authority, hinting at the possible involvement of Atty. Banzon. He claimed the rollo inadvertently ended up in his personal belongings and that he only became aware of it after being contacted regarding the missing document. His claims did not convince the Court, which found no substantiated basis for his defenses.

Final Ruling on Administrative Liability

The Court upheld the findings of OCAT, determining Atty. Avecilla was responsible for the unauthorized removal of the rollo. The Court emphasized that taking judicial records outside court without consent merits administrative penalties. T

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.