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

FACTS

An Anonymous Letter alleged that Atty. Nilo T. Divina spent large sums on prohibited campaign activities for the 2022 Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Central Luzon elections. Specific allegations included sponsoring a trip for incumbent IBP officers to Balesin Island Club in summer 2022; giving cash and gift checks to IBP officers in December 2022; and sponsoring a trip to Bali, Indonesia in February 2023. The complaint attached a letter from Atty. Jocelyn Z. Martinez-Clemente detailing a meeting in Atty. Divina’s office where she was asked what IBP position she would want if he became Governor, after which she and others received PHP 50,000 gift certificates. The ponencia’s investigation found no concrete evidence that Atty. Divina intended to run for IBP-Central Luzon Governor, deeming the allegations conjectural, and noted the acts occurred before the election of the House of Delegates. It found the trips were “team building activities.” However, the ponencia found Atty. Divina violated Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), as his sponsorships, though generous, were excessive and overstepped propriety. He was found guilty of simple misconduct and fined PHP 100,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether the ponencia correctly found Atty. Divina guilty of simple misconduct for violating Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA through his sponsorship of lavish trips for IBP-Central Luzon officers, and whether the imposed penalty of a fine is appropriate.

RULING

Justice Leonen concurs with the ponencia’s finding of guilt for simple misconduct but disagrees with the penalty. He agrees that while there was no direct evidence of illegal campaigning under the Revised IBP By-Laws, Atty. Divina’s acts breached Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA. The acts of generosity—lavish, all-expense-paid trips to Balesin Island and Bali given specifically to past, incumbent, and future IBP-Central Luzon officers during a critical election period—were excessive, aimed at a particular group in power, and bordered on improper and unethical behavior. They lacked beneficial effect for the legal community as a whole. Justice Leonen argues that the PHP 100,000.00 fine is not a commensurate penalty given the serious nature of the violation and Atty. Divina’s affluence, which may not deter future infractions. In his view, suspension is a more appropriate penalty to uphold the CPRA’s mandate and demonstrate the Court’s impartiality against influence and wealth.