CHU vs. GUICO (ETHICS) Docx

CHU vs.
GUICO
A.C. No. 10573
January 13, 2015
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
 Petitioner Fernando Chu retained respondent Atty. Jose Guico as counsel to handle the former’s
company labor disputes. After the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision adverse to Chu’s company,
Guico instructed Chu to raise Php 300,000 to be given to the NLRC Commissioner so that they
would be rendered a favorable decision. After Chu gave the money to Guico, the latter gave him
a supposed draft copy of the NLRC decision which was in favor of Chu’s company.
 Guico then subsequently told Chu to raise another Php 300,000 to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision, but Chu could only come up with Php 280,000.
Nevertheless, Chu gave the money to Guico’s assistant who received it without the issuance of a
receipt. Chu followed up status of the case but was told to wait, and that the money would be
returned to Chu if the NLRC did not accept it.
 Afterwards, the NLRC rendered a decision adverse to Chu’s company. After multiple failed
attempts to appeal the case, Chu terminated Guico as counsel, and filed a disbarment complaint
against him for gross misconduct.
 While Guico denied Chu’s allegations, the IBP found that Guico had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended three years of suspension.
ISSUE:
WON Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving money from Chu to guarantee a favorable decision from
the NLRC (YES)
RULING:
In taking the Lawyer’s Oath, Atty. Guico bound himself to:
x x x maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; x x x support its Constitution and obey the
laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; x x x do no falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; x x x delay no man for money or malice x x x.
The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, to wit:
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for
law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal processes under the Lawyer’s Oath and
the Code of Professional Responsibility is a continuing condition for every lawyer to retain membership
in the Legal Profession. To discharge the obligation, every lawyer should not render any service or give
advice to any client that would involve defiance of the very laws that he was bound to uphold and obey,
for he or she was always bound as an attorney to be law abiding, and thus to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the Legal Profession. Verily, he or she must act and comport himself or herself in such a
manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the Legal Profession. Any lawyer found
to violate this obligation forfeits his or her privilege to continue such membership in the legal
profession.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the
large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law
against bribery and corruption. He compounded his violation by actually using said illegality as his
means of obtaining a huge sum from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal
interest. His acts constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice; and under Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an
individual lawyer as well as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant
of the law. Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession.
Grave misconduct is “improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful
intent and not mere error of judgment.” There is no question that any gross misconduct by an attorney
in his professional or private capacity renders him unfit to manage the affairs of others, and is a ground
for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment, because good moral character is an
essential qualification for the admission of an attorney and for the continuance of such privilege.

CHU vs. GUICO (ETHICS) Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHU vs. GUICO (ETHICS) Docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHU vs. GUICO (ETHICS) Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHU vs.

A.C. No. 10573

January 13, 2015

In taking the Lawyer’s Oath, Atty. Guico bound himself to:

The Code of Professional Responsibility echoes the Lawyer’s Oath, to wit:

You might also like

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