A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC., July 30, 2024
Case Digest by: Mary Philline C. Rodriguez
FACTS:
On March 24, 2023, a case was filed against Atty. Nilo T. Divina, Dean of the University of Santo Tomas-Faculty of Civil Law, for illegal campaign activities related to the election of the IBP-Central Luzon. He allegedly financed a team-building retreat at Balesin Island in the summer of 2022 as a goodwill gesture, though perceived by some as an attempt at patronage.
In December 2022, he distributed cash and SODEXO gift certificates totaling hundreds of thousands of pesos to IBP officers, including PHP 50,000 gift certificates. Furthermore, in February 2023, he sponsored a post-Christmas trip to Bali, Indonesia, for IBP-Central Luzon officers. These actions were characterized as part of a strategy to secure the Governor position in the upcoming IBP election, ultimately positioning him for a potential IBP National Presidency candidacy.
ISSUE:
Whether Divina violated Canon II, Sections 1 (Proper Conduct) and 2 (Dignified Conduct) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.
Canon II, Section 1 of the CPRA mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct while Canon II, Section 2 of the CPRA requires that a lawyer shall respect the law, the courts, tribunals, and other government agencies, their officials, employees, and processes, and act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor towards fellow members of the bar.
Further, “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on one’s fitness to practice law, nor behave in a scandalous manner, whether in public or private life, to the discredit of the legal profession.”
While Atty. Divina’s actions were not explicitly illegal, his lavish sponsorships created an impression of impropriety, casting doubt on his motives and potentially affecting the IBP’s image as an impartial institution.
In this case, Atty. Divina’s financial contributions—through expensive trips and high-value gifts—were excessive and could create undue influence, even if unintended. Such actions compromise the appearance of propriety expected of a lawyer, particularly one associated with IBP leadership.
Hence, the Court found Atty. Divina was guilty of simple misconduct for violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA and imposed a fine of PHP 100,000 with a warning of stricter penalties for future violations.
NOTE: Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier dissented from the majority decision. Justice Hernando opined that Atty. Divina’s act of financially supporting the activities of IBP-Central Luzon officers, by itself and without any proof of bad faith or malice, should be characterized as a purely benevolent act, rather than a misconduct. Absence of proof of such, Atty. Divina has the right to be presumed innocent of the charges against him.
On the other hand, 2025 Bar Chairperson, Justice Lazaro-Javier stated that penalizing “excessive generosity” is problematic and beyond the realm of control. Generosity elicits only a sense of goodness and selflessness. It may differ in degree, but the fact that it is a virtue does not change. Sans evidence of bad faith and ill motive, Atty. Divina should be given the presumption of good faith and regularity in the conduct of his businesses.
THE BARRISTER 