Did the lawyers swindle their clients, or were the lawyers duped by crooked magistrates and prosecutors? This question cropped up after the Supreme Court posted on its website on Feb. 23 an order for the disbarment of lawyers William delos Santos and Carlo Marco Bautista. That the question is being asked, in a case that is meant to promote integrity in the legal profession, illustrates the level of public distrust in the country’s justice system.
The two were stricken off the Roll of Attorneys – Delos Santos for telling his client that he could bribe Court of Appeals justices, and Bautista for claiming to have connections with the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office. The lawyers’ clients handed over bribe money, but when they failed to get the results promised, they filed administrative complaints before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
In the case of Bautista, the complainant presented evidence to show that he paid the lawyer up to P13.3 million in exchange for influencing Makati prosecutors to drop a case against the complainant’s father. Bautista, who reportedly claimed he had connections in the prosecutor’s office, also borrowed P300,000 from his client, which is unethical, according to the Supreme Court. But the complainant’s father still lost the case. The SC, in its order, said “substantial evidence” was presented to prove that the money for fixing the case was paid by the complainant.
In the case of Delos Santos, he reportedly asked the mother of a convict in a drug case for a total of P320,000 that he would supposedly give to a “facilitator” in the Court of Appeals’ 15th Division. The CA, however, affirmed the son’s conviction. Delos Santos promised to return the money to the convict’s mother. When he failed to do so, she filed the complaint.
If the lawyers managed to produce the promised results, it’s unlikely that a complaint would have been filed against them. Influence peddling is believed to be pervasive in the country’s justice system, which is notorious for moving at the speed of molasses and vulnerable to political pressure. As in other government services, delays encourage the payment of “facilitation fees” or grease money to oil the wheels of justice. Investors have described corruption as a serious problem in the Philippine judiciary.
While the complainants are victims of their lawyers, and people must be encouraged to report misconduct in the legal profession, it must also be stressed that bribery is a two-way affair. Sanctions must also be imposed on those who think they can buy their way to a favorable legal decision. The two complainants failed to get the results they paid for, but undoubtedly, there have been cases where similar attempts have succeeded. Unless penalties are imposed on both the bribe giver and receiver, this practice will become entrenched.