Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

A.C. No.

9401, October 22, 2013


JOCELYN DE LEON v. ATTY.
TYRONE
PEDRENA
Facts: Atty. Tyrone Pedrea, a Public Attorney
of Paraaque City. Jocelyn De Leon is a single
mother of two minor children. Atty. Pedrea is the
counsel of Jocelyn De Leon on the case for
support for the two minor children.
Records show, as established by the IBP
Investigating Commissioner, on January 30, 2006
after asking about the status of the case Atty.
Pedrea told Jocelyn De Leon then to ride with
him and he would just drop Jocelyn by the
jeepney station, she refused to ride with him but
Atty. Pedrea persistently told her to get in the
car, and so she acceded to his request so as not
to offend him. Inside the car Atty. Pedrea
rubbed the Jocelyns right leg with his hand;
tried to insert his finger into her firmly
closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly
placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his
finger against her private part. Jocelyn
thereafter tried at all cost to unlock the cars door
and told him categorically that she was getting
off the car. Instead he accelerated a bit more but
sensing her insistence to get off, he stopped the
car, and allowed her to get off.
Jocelyn de Leon then filed with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law against Atty. Tyrone Pedrea.
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended for
his disbarment, the IBP Board of Governors
however modified the penalty to three-month
suspension from practice of law. Upon Motion for
Reconsideration by Atty. Pedrea which the Board
denied, they increased the penalty to six months.
Thereafter transmitted records and resolution to
the Court for approval.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pedrea is guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes, Atty. Pedrea is guilty. The Supreme
Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the
Investigating Commissioner. Yet, the Court
consider the recommended penalty of suspension
for six months not commensurate with the
gravity of the offensive acts committed.
Given the circumstances in which Atty. Pedrea
committed them, his acts were not merely
offensive
and
undesirable
but
repulsive,
disgraceful and grossly immoral. In this regard, it
bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross
when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the
communitys sense of decency.
Therefore, the Court took into consideration
judicial precedents on gross immoral conduct
bearing on sexual matters. The Court consider
the acts committed by Atty. Pedrea to be not of
the same degree as the acts committed by the
respondent lawyer in Calub v. Suller, among other

cases whereby the respondent lawyer was


disbarred for raping his neighbors wife.
Unlike in Barrientos where there was deceit and
in Delos Reyes where there were threats and
taking advantage of a lawyers position,
Atty. Pedrea did not employ any scheme to
satiate his lust, but, instead, he desisted upon the
first signs of the De Leons firm refusal to give in
to his advances.
In view of these considerations, according to the
Court penalty of suspension from the practice
of law for two years is fitting and just.

A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013


JOCELYN DE LEON v. ATTY.
TYRONE
PEDRENA
Facts: Atty. Tyrone Pedrea, a Public Attorney
of Paraaque City. Jocelyn De Leon is a single
mother of two minor children. Atty. Pedrea is the
counsel of Jocelyn De Leon on the case for
support for the two minor children.
Records show, as established by the IBP
Investigating Commissioner, on January 30, 2006
after asking about the status of the case Atty.
Pedrea told Jocelyn De Leon then to ride with
him and he would just drop Jocelyn by the
jeepney station, she refused to ride with him but
Atty. Pedrea persistently told her to get in the
car, and so she acceded to his request so as not
to offend him. Inside the car Atty. Pedrea
rubbed the Jocelyns right leg with his hand;
tried to insert his finger into her firmly
closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly
placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his
finger against her private part. Jocelyn
thereafter tried at all cost to unlock the cars door
and told him categorically that she was getting
off the car. Instead he accelerated a bit more but
sensing her insistence to get off, he stopped the
car, and allowed her to get off.
Jocelyn de Leon then filed with the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint for
disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law against Atty. Tyrone Pedrea.
IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended for
his disbarment, the IBP Board of Governors
however modified the penalty to three-month
suspension from practice of law. Upon Motion for
Reconsideration by Atty. Pedrea which the Board
denied, they increased the penalty to six months.
Thereafter transmitted records and resolution to
the Court for approval.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pedrea is guilty of
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Ruling: Yes, Atty. Pedrea is guilty. The Supreme
Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the
Investigating Commissioner. Yet, the Court
consider the recommended penalty of suspension
for six months not commensurate with the
gravity of the offensive acts committed.
Given the circumstances in which Atty. Pedrea
committed them, his acts were not merely
offensive
and
undesirable
but
repulsive,
disgraceful and grossly immoral. In this regard, it

bears stressing that immoral conduct is gross


when it is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when
committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the
communitys sense of decency.
Therefore, the Court took into consideration
judicial precedents on gross immoral conduct
bearing on sexual matters. The Court consider
the acts committed by Atty. Pedrea to be not of
the same degree as the acts committed by the
respondent lawyer in Calub v. Suller, among other

cases whereby the respondent lawyer was


disbarred for raping his neighbors wife.
Unlike in Barrientos where there was deceit and
in Delos Reyes where there were threats and
taking advantage of a lawyers position,
Atty. Pedrea did not employ any scheme to
satiate his lust, but, instead, he desisted upon the
first signs of the De Leons firm refusal to give in
to his advances.
In view of these considerations, according to the
Court penalty of suspension from the practice
of law for two years is fitting and just.