Case Summary (A.C. No. 4973)
Key Dates
- March 7, 1998: IBP SOCSARGEN Board refers anomaly to IBP National Board
- March 24, 1998: OCA receives referral from IBP Chapter President
- January 31, 2006: Per curiam decision dismissing Judge Dizon, Jr. (481 SCRA 92)
- May 15, 2008: OBC submits Report and Recommendation
- March 15, 2010: En Banc decision on Atty. Barrios
Applicable Law (1987 Constitution)
- Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court (grounds for disbarment or suspension)
- Code of Professional Responsibility
– Canon 7 (uphold integrity and dignity of the profession)
– Rule 1.01 (prohibition against dishonest or deceitful conduct) - Lawyer’s Oath (duty of fidelity to court and clients; prohibition on delay for money or malice)
Background of Referral
The SOCSARGEN IBP Chapter received a joint affidavit (March 3, 1998) by Spouses Rafols alleging that Judge Dizon, Jr. and Atty. Barrios conspired to extort money from the Rafols in exchange for a favorable ruling in their civil case. The chapter’s Board resolved to forward the matter to the IBP national office, which in turn referred it to the OCA. In October 1998 the Supreme Court directed the OBC to investigate Atty. Barrios’s conduct.
Allegations Against Atty. Barrios
Complaints alleged that in December 1997 and January 1998:
- Atty. Barrios introduced the Rafols to Judge Dizon in a hotel coffee shop and relayed the judge’s demand for P150,000 in three tranches (P50,000; P80,000; P20,000) as a “loan” for the judge’s personal needs.
- The Rafols delivered P130,000 in two meetings, then P30,000 separately, under the respondent’s facilitation.
- Atty. Barrios later demanded P25,000 additional fees and P60,000 to redeem his foreclosed vehicle, and P11,000 for a relative’s overseas employment—further exploiting his clients’ predicament.
OBC Proceedings
- Only Atty. Barrios appeared at the OBC hearing; the Rafols did not, despite due notice.
- Evidence from the Rafols and their witnesses had already been presented under the parallel case against Judge Dizon before the Court of Appeals.
- Atty. Barrios denied knowledge of any illicit transaction, admitted receiving P2,000 “token,” and maintained the transfers were loans or gifts without connection to the civil suit.
Evidence for the Complainants
- Affidavits of the Rafols and supporting witnesses described detailed steps in raising and delivering funds, with the respondent’s active involvement:
• Introduction to the judge, directive to “come up with the money,” and assurances of favorable judgment.
• Multiple rendezvous at a hotel and private estate, with vehicles bearing the judge and respondent.
• Complaints’ fear of adverse bias if they did not comply.
• Subsequent media exposé and attempts by respondent and judge to placate complainants with gifts and partial refunds.
Evidence for the Respondent
- Atty. Barrios’s verified comment acknowledged representation and introduction but claimed no knowledge of the judge’s illicit purpose.
- He admitted:
• Receiving P2,000 as a “thank you” for the introduction.
• Transporting and disbursing portions of the Rafols’ money at the judge’s instruction (including retention of P30,000).
• Requesting the NBI and PNP to investigate when hostilities with the Rafols escalated.
OBC Report and Recommendation
- The OBC found the Rafols’ evidence credible and respondent’s denials implausible, noting:
• His role in arranging clandestine meetings outside court.
• His admitted receipt and distribution of funds.
• His belated resort to law-enforcement inquiries as self-serving. - Recommendation: Three-year suspension from law practice, with stern warning against recurrence.
Supreme Court’s Findings
- The Court adopted the OBC report, emphasizing that an atto
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 4973)
Factual Background
- Complainants Manuel C. Rafols, Jr. and Lolita B. Rafols retained Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. to represent them in Civil Case No. 6209 before Branch 37, RTC, General Santos City, paying him ₱15,000 as acceptance fee.
- On December 22, 1997, at the East Royal Hotel coffee shop, respondent introduced complainant Manuel to Judge Teodoro Dizon, Jr., who allegedly demanded ₱150,000 for a favorable decision.
- Complainants raised and delivered portions of the bribe in installments (₱50,000; ₱20,000; ₱30,000) on the same day, followed by ₱80,000 on December 24, 1997, and ₱30,000 on January 22, 1998, under the judge’s instructions conveyed by respondent.
- Judge Dizon threatened bias if the money was not paid and hinted at further payments for other judicial actors; complainants ultimately refrained from further payments and went to the media.
- Respondent and Judge Dizon later attempted to placate the Rafols spouses with gifts and offers of partial refund, all of which were refused.
Antecedents
- March 7, 1998: SOCSARGEN IBP Chapter Resolution No. 1 referred the purported anomaly involving Judge Dizon and Atty. Barrios to the IBP Board of Governors and to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
- Affidavits dated March 3, 11, and 16, 1998 by the Rafols spouses, Larry Sevilla, Allan Rafols, and Daisy Rafols detailed the alleged scheme.
- October 21, 1998: Supreme Court directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to investigate respondent’s conduct in relation to the anomaly already resolved against Judge Dizon (dismissed January 31, 2006).
Proceedings Before the OBC
- Respondent alone appeared at the OBC hearing, denied all charges, and filed a verified comment.
- Complainants did not personally appear, but their testimony and that of their witnesses had been recorded in the administrative proceedings against Judge Dizon before CA Justice Jose Sabio Jr.