G.R. No. A.C. No. 13468 (Formerly CBD Case No. 17-5379). February 21, 2023.
Ryan Anthony O. Lim, Complainant, vs. Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ryan Anthony O. Lim engaged the services of respondent Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista to handle his father’s criminal case pending before the Makati Prosecutor’s Office. Respondent represented that he personally knew the prosecutor and could influence the case’s outcome. Complainant issued multiple checks to respondent totaling millions of pesos, with annotations indicating purposes such as “Retainer for Atty,” “Resolution, warrant, denial,” “Eddie accommodation/fee,” “Atty fees,” and for alleged contacts and incidental expenses. The checks were: ₱200,000.00 (retainer’s fee); ₱6,000,000.00 (to mobilize contacts for a favorable resolution); ₱1,000,000.00 (acceptance fee for complainant’s uncle); ₱500,000.00 (attorney’s fee); ₱500,000.00 (for contacts to secure a signed resolution); ₱5,000,000.00 (for contacts due to a “bidding war”); and ₱300,000.00 (for incidental expenses). Respondent admitted receiving and encashing the checks but denied an attorney-client relationship, claiming the funds were for a safekeeping or escrow arrangement for complainant’s business partner, Joaquin H. Rodriguez, Jr. He claimed he kept the ₱6,000,000.00 cash in his car trunk. After complainant’s father lost the case, complainant demanded a refund. Respondent returned a portion but failed to return ₱5,000,000.00. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and initially recommended disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors later recommended indefinite suspension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista is administratively liable for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty. The Court found respondent’s defense of a mere safekeeping arrangement not credible, noting the checks’ annotations directly contradicted his claim and indicated payments for legal services and to influence the case. Respondent’s act of soliciting and receiving millions of pesos from complainant under the pretense of having influence over prosecutors constitutes gross misconduct, a violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and breaches of Canon 1 (upholding the integrity of the legal profession), Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), and Rule 1.02 (prohibiting counseling or abetting activities aimed at defying the law). His actions also violated Canon 15 (diligence), Canon 16 (fidelity to client’s cause), Canon 17 (fidelity to the court), Canon 18 (serving client with competence), Canon 19 (representing client with zeal), and Canon 20 (charging only fair and reasonable fees). The Court emphasized that an attorney’s duty is to uphold the law, not to corrupt it. Considering the gravity of his misconduct, which eroded public confidence in the legal profession, and following jurisprudence for similar offenses, the Supreme Court DISBARRED respondent Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista. His name was ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He was also ordered to return the remaining ₱5,000,000.00 to complainant, with legal interest.