G.R. No.: A.M. No. 23-04-05-SC. Date: July 30, 2024.
Case Title/Parties: RE: ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN AND ACTIVITIES IN INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES – CENTRAL LUZON ALLEGEDLY PERPETRATED BY ATTY. NILO DIVINA. (Dissenting Opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier)

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from an anonymous complaint alleging that Atty. Nilo Divina engaged in illegal campaigning for the position of IBP Central Luzon Governor by sponsoring two trips for IBP Central Luzon officers: one to Balesin resort in 2022 and another to Bali, Indonesia in February 2023. The ponencia found Atty. Divina guilty of Simple Misconduct for violating the CPRA, imposing a fine of PHP 100,000.00, while exculpating him from the specific charge of illegal campaigning. The ponencia framed the issue as calibrating guidelines to distinguish between acceptable generosity and excessive largesse that teeters close to influence peddling.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Nilo Divina should be held administratively liable, penalized for “excessive generosity,” for sponsoring the IBP Central Luzon team-building trips.

RULING

No. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Lazaro-Javier voted to absolve Atty. Nilo Divina and the other named attorneys (Attys. Peter Paul S. Maglalang, Winston M. Ginez, Jocelyn “Jo” M. Clemente, Jade Paulo T. Molo, Enrique V. Dela Cruz, Jr., and Jose I. Dela Rama, Jr.) of any administrative liability. The dissent argues that penalizing “excessive generosity” is problematic and unsupported by law or rules for two primary reasons:
1. Generosity is a Virtue, Not a Wrongdoing: Punishing generosity contradicts natural law, as punishment is organically linked to wrongs, not good deeds. Generosity is an unequivocal concept of selfless giving. The context shows Atty. Divina’s long history of contributions to the IBP and other institutions since at least 2012, totaling millions of pesos, predating any election rumors by a decade. There was no evidence of ill motive; the trips were legitimate team-building activities, and Atty. Divina, as Legal Adviser of IBP Central Luzon, was appropriately present. He never formally declared any candidacy, so there was nothing to campaign for. His similar sponsorships for the UST Faculty of Civil Law further demonstrate a pattern of magnanimity, not corrupt intent.
2. No Legal Standard for “Excessive Generosity”: There exists no clear standard within the CPRA, any other rule, or jurisprudence to measure when generosity becomes “excessive.” The ponencia provided no guideposts for what is “usual,” “proper,” or “reasonable” in this context. Without a defined standard, penalizing an attorney for this undefined concept is legally untenable.