Penticostes v Ibaez

A.C. CBD No. 167, 9 March 1999

Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court
J. Romero
FACTS: Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual, sister-in-law of Atty. Prudencio S.
Penticostes was sued for non-remittance of SSS payments. In the course of the
investigation Encarnacion Pascual gave P1804 to Atty. Disodado Ibanez, the
Prosecutor for the case, as payment for her SSS contributions in arrears. However,
such payment was not remitted to the SSS, as certified by SSS in October 2, 1989.
In November 16, 1990, Atty. Penticostes filed a complaint with the RTC of Tarlac for
professional misconduct against Atty. Ibanez due to the latters non-remittance of
SSS contributions of Encarnacion and alleged that the misappropriation of
Encarnacions SSS contribution was a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
A week later, respondent paid the earlier amount to SSS on behalf of Encarnacion
Pascual. However the case of Ibanez has been forwarded to the IBP-Tarlac Chapter,
the RTC observing that they had no competence to receive evidence on the matter
and later on forwarded to the the IBPs Commission on Bar Discipline.
Respondent claimed that the act of accommodating Pascuals request for payments
did not amount to professional misconduct but was an act of Christian charity,
furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic, the amount
having been already paid to the SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground
that the acts complained of were not done in his capacity as practicing lawyer but
on account of his office as a prosecutor.
On September 1998, the Commission recommended that Atty. Ibanez be
reprimanded with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense would
be dealt with more severely in the future, and on November 1998 the Board of
Governors of the IBP adopted and approved its Commissions recommendation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Ibanez act of accommodating Pascuals request was
tantamount to professional misconduct?
HELD: Yes, accommodating Pascuals request was tantamount to professional
misconduct.
RATIO: The SC adopted the recommendation of the IBP that Atty. Ibanez was guilty
of professional misconduct. While the contested payment was remitted to the SSS
on November 23, 1990, it was clear that the payment was made only after the
complaint was filed against respondent. Further, receiving money from persons
who have official transactions with his office are not included in the duties of a
provincial prosecutor.
A high sense of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected of a member of the
bar as stipulated in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: a lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The nonremittance of the Pascuals fund to the SSS is a gross violation of such canon. The
failure of the Atty. Ibanez to immediately remit the amount to SSS gives rise to the

presumption that he has misappropriated the amount for his own use and is a gross
violation of general morality as well as professional ethics.
Further, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: these canons
shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks
likewise a lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public
office thus, moral integrity should be upheld by a lawyer who holds public office.
Thus the Court reprimands Atty. Ibanez with a stern warning that the commission of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely in the future.