AC 8451; (September, 2020) (Digest)
A.C. No. 8451. September 30, 2020. ATTY. ESTHER GERTRUDE D. BILIRAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DANILO A. BANTUGAN, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant, a member of the IBP-Bohol Chapter, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Danilo A. Bantugan for alleged misuse of funds and property of the Legal Assistance for Effective Law Enforcement Program (LAELEP), a joint project of the Provincial Government of Bohol and IBP-Bohol. The complaint centered on several incidents, including Atty. Bantugan taking a P27,500.00 check payable to cash, intended for JJ’s Seafood Village for seminar expenses, and recording it as paid when it was not, leading to demands from the establishment. A Special Committee formed by IBP-Bohol investigated and found other irregularities involving Atty. Bantugan, such as unliquidated combat pay deductions, undelivered paid police handbooks, unauthorized borrowing of a LAELEP laptop, and an unliquidated trip to Singapore. The Committee recommended filing appropriate actions.
Atty. Bantugan denied the charges, claiming the issue was politically motivated from a prior IBP election rivalry and that the complaint was retaliatory for his role in a separate disbarment case against complainant. He argued accountability for LAELEP funds lay with the Provincial Government, not IBP, and noted the IBP Board eventually endorsed the matter to the provincial government for audit and action.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Danilo A. Bantugan is administratively liable for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Bantugan is administratively liable. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that he violated Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The legal logic rests on the fiduciary nature of a lawyer’s duty and the standard of conduct required beyond professional settings. The funds and property of LAELEP, sourced from the provincial government, are public in character. Atty. Bantugan, as a committee member, was entrusted with their safekeeping and proper disbursement.
His failure to ensure payment to JJ’s Seafood Village despite taking the check, coupled with the other documented irregularities like the unliquidated expenses and unauthorized use of the laptop, constitutes dishonest conduct. His defenses of political motivation and retaliation were deemed unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the established factual findings of misappropriation and failure to account. A lawyer’s integrity is expected to be beyond reproach at all times, and misconduct in the handling of funds, even in a non-legal capacity, reflects adversely on fitness to practice law. The Court modified the IBP Board of Governors’ recommendation, imposing a one-year suspension from the practice of law, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.