20) - A.C. No. 9401 de Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena October 22, 2013

A.C. No.
9401; October 22, 2013
JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, Respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:
___________________________
FACTS:
Complainant, De Leon averred that the respondent Atty.Pedreña had sexually

harassed her when she went to his to inquire of her case for support for her two
minor children against her husband; that he invited her for lunch and talked about
the said case; that when they are about to go home, Atty. Pedrena offered her a
ride since he would just drop her by the near jeepney station. During the ride Atty.
Pedrena held her hand tried very hard inserting his finger into her firmly closed hand
and despite her resistance, he continued rubbing her left legs, and even grabbed her
hand and forced it to put on his penis.
De Leon continued to wrestle and struggle when she saw that they were
already approaching the place where she was supposed to get off. She tried at all
cost to unlock the car’s door and told him that she is getting off the car. He stopped
the car, and allowed her to get off.
In his answer, Atty. Pedreña averred that De Leon’s allegations were

unsubstantiated; that entertaining such a complaint would open the gates to those
who had evil desires to destroy the names of good lawyers; it is premature because
De Leon had already charged him with acts of lasciviousness in the Parañaque City
Prosecutor’s Office; and that he had also filed a complaint for theft against De Leon.
Attached to Atty. Pedreña’s answer were his counter-affidavit in the criminal

case for acts of lasciviousness and his complaint-affidavit for theft. In his counter
affidavit, Atty. Pedreña admitted giving a ride to De Leon, but he vehemently denied
making sexual advances on her, insisting that she had sat very close to him during
the ride that even made it hard for him to shift gears, and that the ride had lasted
for only two to three minutes. In here, he did not mention the presence of the third
party which he claimed in the complaint affidavit for theft.
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved with modification the
report and recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner of disbarment
and imposed upon Atty. Pedreña only suspension from the practice of law for three
months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Pedreña’s can be disbarred based on his sexual conduct
committed against the complainant.
HELD:
Yes. There is no doubt that De Leon was able to prove her case against Atty.
Pedreña. During the clarificatory hearing, she was straightforward and spontaneous
in answering the questions propounded on her. Her account of the incident that
happened was consistent with the matters she stated in her Complaint and Verified
Position Paper.
The Court found no merit at all in the defenses put forth by Atty. Pedreña.
The Theft case filed a mere after thought on his part. Such criminal complaint
hinged on a claim that there was another person during that incident who allegedly
saw De Leon stealing his mobile phone. Yet, in his Position Paper and in his Counter-
Affidavit to the Acts of Lasciviousness case, which was executed after the institution
of the criminal complaint for Theft, he never mentioned anything about a third
person being present during the incident. If the presence of this third person was
crucial to prove his case against herein
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, provides that a member of the Bar
may be disbarred or suspended for grossly immoral conduct, or violation of his oath
as a lawyer. Atty. Pedreña’s misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was
then a Public Attorney mandated to provide free legal service to indigent litigants,
and by the fact that De Leon was then such a client. He also disregarded his oath as
a public officer to serve others and to be accountable at all times, because he
thereby took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his
legal assistance.
However, unlike with other disbarment cases which meted the most severe
penalty of disbarment, the acts committed by Atty. Pedreña to be not of the same
degree as the acts punished under the cited judicial precedents.
Atty. Pedreña did not employ any scheme to satiate his lust, but, instead, he
desisted upon the first signs of the complainant’s firm refusal to give in to his
advances. In view of these considerations, the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law for two years is fitting and just.
The Court suspended Atty. Tyrone Pedreña from the practice of law for two years.

20) - A.C. No. 9401 de Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena October 22, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

20) - A.C. No. 9401 de Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena October 22, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20) - A.C. No. 9401 de Leon vs. Atty. Pedrena October 22, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.C. No.

9401; October 22, 2013

JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. TYRONE PEDREÑA, Respondent.

Complainant, De Leon averred that the respondent Atty.Pedreña had sexually

In his answer, Atty. Pedreña averred that De Leon’s allegations were

Attached to Atty. Pedreña’s answer were his counter-affidavit in the criminal

You might also like