23.
In re Avecilla
Facts:
Sometime in 1985, respondent Atty. Victor C. Avecilla (Atty. Avecilla) and a certain Mr. Louis C.
Biraogo (Mr. Biraogo) filed a petition before this Court impugning the constitutionality of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 883, i.e., the law that called for the holding of a presidential snap election on 7
February 1986. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 72954 and was consolidated with nine (9)
other petitions1 voicing a similar concern.
On 8 January 1986, after the aforesaid resolution became final, the rollo3 of G.R. No. 72954 was
entrusted to the Court’s Judicial Records Office (JRO) for safekeeping.
On 14 July 2003, the respondent and Mr. Biraogo sent a letter5 to the Honorable Hilario G.
Davide, Jr., then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Davide), requesting that they
be furnished several documents6 relative to the expenditure of the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF). In order to show that they have interest in the JDF enough to be informed of how it
was being spent, the respondent and Mr. Biraogo claimed that they made contributions to the
said fund by way of the docket and legal fees they paid as petitioners in G.R No. 72954.7
On 28 July 2003, Chief Justice Davide instructed8 Atty. Teresita Dimaisip (Atty. Dimaisip), then
Chief of the JRO, to forward the rollo of G.R. No. 72954 for the purpose of verifying the claim of
the respondent and Mr. Biraogo.
On 30 July 2003, following a diligent search for the rollo of G.R. No. 72954, Atty. Dimaisip
apprised9 Chief Justice Davide that the subject rollo could not be found in the archives.
Resorting to the tracer card10 of G.R. No. 72954, Atty. Dimaisip discovered that the subject
rollo had been borrowed from the JRO on 13 September 1991 but, unfortunately, was never
since returned.11 The tracer card named the respondent, although acting through a certain
Atty. Salvador Banzon (Atty. Banzon), as the borrower of the subject rollo.
Issue:
WON Atty. Banzon should be held administratively liable for borrowing the rollo.
Ruling:
Yes. We find that there are sufficient grounds to hold respondent administratively liable.
First. Taking judicial records, such as a rollo, outside court premises, without the court’s
consent, is an administratively punishable act. In Fabiculana, Sr. v. Gadon,55 this Court
previously sanctioned a sheriff for the wrongful act of bringing court records home, thus:
Likewise Ciriaco Y. Forlales, although not a respondent in complainant's letter-complaint,
should be meted the proper penalty, having admitted taking the records of the case home and
forgetting about them. Court employees are, in the first place, not allowed to take any court
records, papers or documents outside the court premises. It is clear that Forlales was not only
negligent in his duty of transmitting promptly the records of an appealed case to the appellate
court but he also failed in his duty not to take the records of the case outside of the court and
to subsequently forget about them.56 (Emphasis supplied)
Second. The act of the respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails the
employment of deceit not becoming a member of the bar.1awphi1 It presupposes the use of
misrepresentation and, to a certain extent, even abuse of position on the part of the
respondent because the lending of rollos are, as a matter of policy, only limited to official
purposes.
As a lawyer then employed with the government, the respondent clearly violated Rule 6.02,
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
