Attorney Accountability for Defamatory Imputations Against Courts

In April 2016, the Supreme Court En Banc held two lawyers administratively liable for a checkbook entry that implied the Sandiganbayan had been paid PHP 2,000,000.00 to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO). The case underscores that lawyers who make or abet imputations that erode public confidence in the judiciary violate the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and face suspension from the practice of law.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a 2007 Senate investigation into anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT group of companies. During the inquiry, a checkbook stub was examined containing the entry: "Cash for Sandiganbayan, tro, potc-philcomsat case - P2,000,000." The entry suggested that a check was issued to the Sandiganbayan in exchange for a TRO in an injunction case against Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC).

The Sandiganbayan, upon learning of the publicized entry, motu proprio initiated indirect contempt proceedings against the lawyers involved. In May 2009, the Sandiganbayan found both lawyers guilty of indirect contempt, imposing a fine and imprisonment. The complainant corporation then filed an administrative complaint seeking their disbarment.

The Lawyers' Defenses

Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr. maintained that he committed no violation of the CPR, insisting the Sandiganbayan's findings were erroneous. He also argued that the contempt ruling had been appealed and therefore could not serve as a basis for administrative liability.

Atty. Sikini C. Labastilla similarly argued that the administrative complaint was premature because his appeal was still pending. He claimed no participation in creating the checkbook entry and asserted there was nothing contemptuous about it.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected both defenses. It explained that a disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action, even when based on the same facts. A finding of guilt in a criminal case does not automatically result in administrative liability, and an acquittal does not necessarily exculpate a lawyer administratively. Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own and may proceed independently of criminal cases.

The Court also noted that Atty. Lokin, Jr. did not join the appeal filed by Atty. Labastilla, so the Sandiganbayan ruling had become final as to him. Atty. Labastilla's appeal, meanwhile, was denied by the Court for failure to show reversible error.

Violations of the CPR

The Court found that Atty. Lokin, Jr. caused the making of the checkbook entry. Evidence showed that the company's financial records were under his control, the bookkeeper testified he requested the check's issuance and instructed her to write the entry, and he failed to provide a credible explanation.

The Court also held Atty. Labastilla liable, citing circumstances showing his complicity: he was the external counsel who applied for the TRO, he admitted receiving the PHP 2,000,000.00 check (allegedly for legal fees but without supporting evidence), and the TRO and check were both dated September 23, 2005.

Both lawyers were found guilty of violating Canon 7 (upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession) and Canon 11 (observing and maintaining respect due to the courts). The Court emphasized that lawyers, as officers of the court, must help build—not destroy—the high esteem and regard essential to the proper administration of justice.

Penalties Imposed

The Court suspended Atty. Lokin, Jr. from the practice of law for three years for being directly responsible for the entry, and Atty. Labastilla for one year for his complicity. Both were warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• Administrative cases proceed independently of criminal cases. A pending appeal of a criminal conviction does not bar or delay disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer.
• Lawyers must guard the judiciary's reputation. Any act or statement that imputes corruption or impropriety to a court—even in internal records—can constitute a violation of the CPR.
• Documentation matters. A lawyer who receives funds must properly account for them; unexplained receipts can support findings of misconduct.
• Complicity attracts liability. A lawyer need not be the direct author of a defamatory statement to be held liable if circumstances show participation or conspiracy.
• Respect for courts is a sworn duty. Canon 11 of the CPR is not aspirational—it is enforceable and carries serious penalties for violation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.