Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Catalan Vs Silvosa

    Uploaded by

    Butch Sui Generis
    Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Silvosa for several ethical violations including representing a client in a case where he previously served as prosecutor, attempting to bribe a prosecutor to change their findings, and being convicted of direct bribery. While Atty. Silvosa denied the allegations, the court found him guilty of violating rules prohibiting representation of conflicting interests. Given his conviction for bribery and attempts to bribe the prosecutor, the court disbarred Atty. Silvosa from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Catalan Vs Silvosa

    Uploaded by

    Butch Sui Generis
    1K views2 pages
    Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Silvosa for several ethical violations including representing a client in a case where he previously served as prosecutor, attempting to bribe a prosecutor to change their findings, and being convicted of direct bribery. While Atty. Silvosa denied the allegations, the court found him guilty of violating rules prohibiting representation of conflicting interests. Given his conviction for bribery and attempts to bribe the prosecutor, the court disbarred Atty. Silvosa from practicing law.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Catalan vs Silvosa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Silvosa for several ethical violations including representing a client in a case where he previously served as prosecutor, attempting to bribe a prosecutor to change their findings, and being convicted of direct bribery. While Atty. Silvosa denied the allegations, the court found him guilty of violating rules prohibiting representation of conflicting interests. Given his conviction for bribery and attempts to bribe the prosecutor, the court disbarred Atty. Silvosa from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Catalan Vs Silvosa

    Uploaded by

    Butch Sui Generis
    Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment against Atty. Silvosa for several ethical violations including representing a client in a case where he previously served as prosecutor, attempting to bribe a prosecutor to change their findings, and being convicted of direct bribery. While Atty. Silvosa denied the allegations, the court found him guilty of violating rules prohibiting representation of conflicting interests. Given his conviction for bribery and attempts to bribe the prosecutor, the court disbarred Atty. Silvosa from practicing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ATTY. POLICARPIO CATALAN JR., vs. ATTY.

    JOSELITO SILVOSA

    A.C. No. 7360 July 24, 2012

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Atty. Catalan filed a case for disbarment against Respondent Atty. Silvosa on the following
    grounds: 1) Atty. Silvosa appeared as counsel for the accused in the same case for which he previously
    appeared as prosecutor; 2) Atty. Silvosa bribed his then colleague Prosecutor Phoebe Toribio for
    P30,000 and 3) the Sandiganbayan convicted respondent in a criminal case for direct bribery.

    PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

    Atty. Catalan accused Atty. Silvosa of appearing as private counsel in a case where he previously
    appeared as public prosecutor hence violating Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional responsibility. Atty
    Catalan alleged that respondent and the accused are relatives and have the same middle name.

    In a case for frustrated murder where Atty. Catalan’s brother was a respondent. Prosec Toribio testified
    Atty. Silvosa, while still a public prosecutor, offered her P30,000 to reconsider her findings and uphold
    the charge of murder. Atty. Catalan also presented the Sandiganbayan’s decision in a criminal case
    convicting Atty. Silvosa of direct bribery on May 18, 2006.

    RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

    Atty. Silvosa claims that his appearance was only for the purpose of reinstatement of bail and denies any
    relationship between and the accused. Atty. Silvosa dismisses at the same time the allegations of Prosec.
    Toribio and such allegations were “self-serving” and purposely dug by Atty. Catalan and his puppeteer to
    pursue persecution. While admitting of his conviction by the Sandiganbayan, respondent asserts that
    “conviction under the 2nd paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code do not involve moral
    turpitude.

    IBP FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION:

    The IBP ruled that respondent was guilty only of the first charge by appearing and filing a motion to post
    bail bond pending appeal and thus violating Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
    gave the penalty of reprimand. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and
    recommendation however modifying the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for 6 months.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not respondent is guilty?

    HELD:

    Yes, respondent is guilty of violating Rule 6.03.


    Rule 6.03 which states that “A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or
    employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.” When he
    entered his appearance on the Motion to Post Bail Bond Pending Appeal, Atty. Silvosa conveniently
    forgot Rule 15.03 which provides that “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by
    written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of facts.” Atty. Silvosa’s representation of
    conflicting interests and his failed attempt at bribing Pros. Toribio merit at least the penalty of
    suspension.

    Atty. Silvosa’s final conviction of the crime of direct bribery clearly falls under one of the grounds for
    disbarment under Section 27 of Rule 138. Disbarment follows as a consequence of Atty. Silvosa’s
    conviction of the crime. We are constrained to impose a penalty more severe than suspension because
    we find that Atty. Silvosa is predisposed to flout the exacting standards of morality and decency
    required of a member of the Bar. His excuse that his conviction was not in his capacity as a lawyer, but
    as a public officer, is unacceptable and betrays the unmistakable lack of integrity in his character. The
    practice of law is a privilege, and Atty. Silvosa has proved himself unfit to exercise this privilege.

    Respondent was disbarred.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy