In Re Avecilla | A.C. No. 6683 | June 21, 2011 | J.

Perez
Nature of Case: Administrative
Respondent: Atty. Victor Avecilla

Summary: Respondent, while employed as part of the legal staff of an SC justice, borrowed and failed to return the
rollo of a petition, where he also happened to be the petitioner. Court resolved to suspend him for 6 months.
Topic: Canons Apply to Lawyers in Government Service

Facts

 In July 2003, the respondent Atty. Victor Avecilla and Luis Biraogo sent a letter to the Chief Justice Davide,
requesting for documents re: expenditure of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
 The respondent and Biraogo asserted their contributions to the JDF through the docket and legal fees they
paid in G.R No. 72954, to show that they have an interest in how the JDF was being spent.
 (Flashback: In 1985, respondent Avecilla and Biraogo filed a petition, G.R. No. 72954, assailing B.P Blg. 883
(w/c called for a snap election in 1986) The court En banc dismissed said petition. The rollo of said petition
was then entrusted to the Judicial Records Office (JRO).)
 (Back to 2003) C.J. Davide instructed Atty. Teresita Dimaisip, then JRO Chief, to forward the rollo of G.R. No.
72954 to verify the claim of the respondent and Mr. Biraogo.
 The rollo of G.R. No. 72954 could not be found in the archives, accdg. to Dimaisip, but based on the tracer
card of G.R. No. 72954, the rollo was borrowed in 1991 by respondent Avecilla, and was never returned.
o The tracer card of G.R. No. 72954 bears the name of the respondent and the signature of Atty.
Banzon who, on behalf of the respondent, received the rollo
 After being told to make a report by C.J. Davide, Atty. Dimaisip reported the ff in a a Memorandum:
o When the rollo of G.R. No. 72954 was borrowed, the respondent was employed with the S.C. as staff
of retired Justice Gancayco.
o That upon contacting him, respondent acknowledged having borrowed the subject rollo
 Respondent turned over said rollo in August 2003, almost twelve (12) years after it was borrowed.
 C.J. Davide directed the Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT), to make a report on the incident. The OCAT
reported that the respondent may be administratively charged, as a lawyer and member of the bar. OCAT’s
observations:
o J. Gancayco retired on 20 August 1991. Respondent (Gancayco’s staffer) was nearing the end of his
tenure when he borrowed the subject rollo on 13 September 1991. (by custom, staff are given an
extension after retirement of their boss). This indicates that the rollo was borrowed for a personal
agenda.
o Although he can’t be sanctioned as an employee, he can be administratively sanctioned as a lawyer
and officer of the court
 The Court En banc directed respondent to show cause
 Respondent’s explanation:
o Somebody signed the tracer card and took the rollo in his name. Respondent said that it might have
been Atty. Banzon.]
o For an unknown reason, the subject rollo ended up in his box of personal papers .
o He denounced any ill-motive, saying that until he was contacted by Atty. Dimaisip, he never checked
his box, and that he cooperated in the return of said item.
 OCAT found this Explanation to be unsatisfactory.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a formal investigation. OBC found respondent to be
accountable and recommended that he be suspended from practicing law for one year.

ISSUES

WON Respondent is responsible for the subject rollo-YES

1. Despite respondent’s denial, the missing rollo was retrieved from him. This fact is sufficient affirmation that
it was he who borrowed the rollo.
2. The respondent’s explanation as to how the subject rollo found its way into his box is mere speculation.
 3. The respondent’s stature as a lawyer and former staffer of a Justice only made his excuse unacceptable.
Accdg to OCAT:
a. x x x With this responsible position, Avecilla is expected to exercise extraordinary diligence with respect
to all matters xxx

WON respondent is administratively liable?-YES

1. Taking judicial records outside court premises, without the courts consent, is an administratively
punishable act.

Fabiculana, Sr. v. Gadon:

“Court employees are, in the first place, not allowed to take any court records, papers or
documents outside the court premises”

2. The act of the respondent in borrowing a rollo for unofficial business entails deceit.

As a lawyer then employed with the government, the respondent clearly violated Rule 6.02, Canon 6
of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

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. (Emphasis
supplied).

. 3. The fact that respondent returned rollo after ~12 years confirms his illicit motive.

WON the penalty is commensurate to the offense committed?-NO

Respondent cannot be sanctioned as an employee, since his tenure has long ended, but can still be liable as a lawyer
and a member of the bar. However, the recommended penalty (1 yr suspension) is too harsh. The ff circumstances
are in favor of the respondent:

1. G.R. No. 72954 was already finally resolved when its rollo was borrowed. Thus, the act of respondent
worked no prejudice.

2. It was never shown that the contents of the rollo, w/c remained confidential after resolution, were
disclosed by the respondent.

3. Respondent cooperated with the JRO for the return of the rollo.

DISPOSITION
The respondent is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months. The respondent is also STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.