THE Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred an attorney for informing his client that he could “manipulate” the legal process by “bribing” Justices of the Court of Appeals (CA).

In a ruling by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the lawyer was also ordered to return the amount of P160,000 to his client, which he had claimed would be utilized to bribe justices of the CA’s Fifteenth Division.

According to court records, the complainant’s son was found “guilty” of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 23.

The complainant retained the lawyer’s legal services to file an appeal with the appellate court, paying P20,000 as an initial acceptance fee and P5,000 for the request of documents.

In 2015, the lawyer suspect requested an additional payment of P160,000 from the victim, claiming that it would be used to “bribe” the Justices of the Fifteenth Division of the CA, where the case was pending.

The lawyer informed the victim that this was her “only option” for reversing her son’s conviction. Relying on the lawyer’s guarantee, the victim borrowed funds from her friends and family to raise the money.

After receiving the payment, the lawyer suspect assured the victim that the funds would be given to his insider or “facilitator” within the Fifteenth Division of the CA.

However, to the victim’s disappointment, the Fifteenth Division of the CA upheld her son’s conviction. She questioned the lawyer as to why her son’s conviction had been affirmed by the lower court.

The lawyer promised the victim that he would return the money, but he failed to do so, prompting the victim to file a complaint against him.

Despite being ordered to comment on the complaint, the suspect failed to file his comment, leading the Court to refer the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Also, the lawyer failed to attend the scheduled mandatory conference and submit the required pleadings. As a result, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found him “guilty of gross misconduct” and recommended his “disbarment” from legal practice.

The IBP Board of Governors subsequently adopted the Investigating Commissioner’s recommendation but modified the imposable penalty.

Affirming the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board, the SC observed that “the obstinate snobbery [by the lawyer suspect] to comply with [the Court’s and the IBP’s] orders not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character but also underscores his disrespect of lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.”

The Court also noted that the suspect had previously been suspended from the practice of law for serious misconduct and violations of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.