Scribd
Upload
333 views

A.M. NO. 1048, JULY 14, 1995: Reyes vs. GAA

The Supreme Court agrees with the decision to disbar the respondent lawyer. The respondent, an Assistant City Fiscal, was caught accepting marked money from the complainant during an entrapment operation by the NBI regarding an extortion complaint. In his defense, the respondent denied the extortion charge and claimed the money was planted. The Court found the extortion by the respondent as a public official constituted misconduct that violated his oath as a lawyer, warranting his disbarment.

Uploaded by

Patrice Grace De Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
333 views

A.M. NO. 1048, JULY 14, 1995: Reyes vs. GAA

The Supreme Court agrees with the decision to disbar the respondent lawyer. The respondent, an Assistant City Fiscal, was caught accepting marked money from the complainant during an entrapment operation by the NBI regarding an extortion complaint. In his defense, the respondent denied the extortion charge and claimed the money was planted. The Court found the extortion by the respondent as a public official constituted misconduct that violated his oath as a lawyer, warranting his disbarment.

Uploaded by

Patrice Grace De Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

A.M. NO.

1048, JULY 14, 1995

REYES VS.
FACTS
Wellington Reyes, complainant, reported to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been the victim of
extortion by respondent Atty. Salvador Gaa, an Assistant City
Fiscal of Manila, who was investigating a complaint for estafa
filed by complainant’s business rival. The NBI agents
apprehended respondent in an entrapment operation set up by
them.
ISSUE

Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred on


the grounds of misconduct and willful violation of lawyer’s
oath.
TEXT

HELD
The Supreme Court agrees with the decision of the IBP Board of Governors to
disbar the respondent.
In the case at bench, respondent was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of receiving the marked
money from complainant during the entrapment conducted by the NBI agents, which resulted in his
arrest and the subsequent filing of administrative and criminal cases against him. In his defense,
respondent merely denied the charge of extortion and retorted that the marked money was planted by
complainant.

Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to affect his
qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of
the bar on such grounds (Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]).

The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official, which also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath (Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138,
Section 18; People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968 [1958]), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay
no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a
ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action (Agpalo, Legal Ethics 66-67
[1983]).

You might also like