1

Identifying Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Case Assigned:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of Branch 12,
Regional Trial Court of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA,
respondents.

Atty. Avelino T. Javellana, herein Javellana, private respondent in the

case at hand, was the attorney of the late Arturo Pacificador in the 1980’s.
Arturo Pacificador was a politician from the Province of Antique. During the
May 1984 Elections, Pacificador won the elections for Assemblyman over his
rival, the late Evelio Javier. The latter protested the election result and asked
to revoke the proclamation due to suspicions in compromising the result. In
1986, Javier was murdered and the primary suspect was Pacificador. Criminal
complaints were charged against Pacificador and the gun men. Nineteen (19)
men, including Javellana, were charged for Javier’s murder. Pacificador
remained at large while Javellana was arrested together with some of the
accused.

The case assigned tackles issue regarding Javellana’s detention as an

accused for Javier’s murder. Javellana, by pleas of health and safety, requested
not to be detained at Antique Provincial Jail. Judge Maceda issued an order
giving custody over Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
at the time, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario. The order specifically provided for
that he be detained at Atty. del Rosario’s residence and was not allowed
liberty to roam around. It was clear upon the order that he was to be held as
detention prisoner in said residence. However, the order was not strictly
complied with because Javellana was not detained in said residence. He was
seen going to his normal life as a free man and even continued to engage in the
practice of law despite a resolution previously issued prohibiting him to do
the same. The said court order was assailed. The resolution was then released,
it was we held that Judge Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the order giving custody over Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, Atty. Deogracias del
Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time,
sufficient reason was shown why private respondent Javellana should not be
detained at the Antique Provincial Jail.

It can be observed from the foregoing that Javellana violated his

primary duty to society or state as a lawyer. It is the lawyer’s primary duty to
society or state to uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes (Canon 1, Code of Professional
Responsibility). As a lawyer, he had sworn to this duty. By swearing the
lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law,
 2

and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of

justice a vital function of democracy, a failure of which is disastrous to society
(Businos vs. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407).

It is indeed disastrous. A lawyer is expected to do well of this duty, yet

here he is, involved in a case which helped change the society as we know
today. As a lawyer he is supposed to be a model of the community so as the
respect to the law is concern. He should not do unlawful act or violate the
law and can be disciplined if he do so. He was supposed to respect the law
yet he was engaged in a murder case. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility). The murder case was filed in the 80’s but was only recently
rendered judgement in 2014. Pacificador was acquitted while Javellana and
other accused were convicted.

The controversy here which needed to be addressed, however, is why

and how Javellana continued to live his life as a free man and continued his
practice of law during the period which he should be detained.

Our Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property. It is a violation to ones right if these are taken away from
a person. However there is an instance when we can legally deprived a person
of his right to liberty and property. That is when he is detained or imprisoned
in a penal institution for acts or omission in violation of the law. In the case
at hand Javellana was not detained in a penal institution however he was
under judicial order to be detained under the custody of Atty. del Rosario. He
was under the custody of the law, hence he was a detention prisoner. Being a
detention prisoner he was not allowed to engage in the practice of his
profession.

“When a person charged of an offense is arrested, he is deemed in

custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be
detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is
authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be
stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a
necessary consequence of arrest and detention (People vs. Maceda)”.

It is the duty of the lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers (Sec. 20 (b), Rule 138, Rules of
Court). Javellana clearly knows that he is prohibited to practice his
profession while under detention yet he deliberately violated this. What is
more intriguing is his failure to comply to the order of his detention. The court
order by Judge Maceda was released on 1989 and was set aside only on 2000.
 3

During this period Javellana continued to live his life a free man despite
knowing that he should be detained. He is well aware of this order and should
have followed it.

Javellana’s actions during this period only shows that he has not
acquired the respect for the court. Yet we also cannot bear to forego the
question as to why the court failed to release a new order for his detention.
More than ten (10) years has passed before the order of his detention at Atty.
del Rosario’s residence was changed. It is as if they allowed a person go free
and jeopardize justice. The Court, all this time, has known of Javellana’s
freedom because there is no evidence that he is hiding. This is really baffling.
But more so, he shouldn’t have displayed his freedom yet have remained in
detention. As a lawyer he knows the consequences of his detention. In
Geeslin vs. Navarro, 185 SCRA 230, it was held that continuing to practice
law in clear violation and open defiance of the original resolution of
suspension from the practice of law, the Supreme Court ordered the name of
the lawyer stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys.

“No master but the law, No guide but conscience, No goal but justice”.
Time and again, it is important to remember the principal obligation of the
lawyer: uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote
respect for law and legal processes (Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Conduct). General Statute for the Spanish Bar (Estatuto General de la
Abogacia Espanola) expressly provides: “the fundament obligation of the
lawyer as a participant in the public function of the administration of justice
is to cooperate in such administration, conciliating and defending in law such
interests as may be entrusted to him. In no case, however, do such interests
ever justify the lawyer’s departure from the supreme end of justice to which
the Bar is inextricably linked”.

Lawyers are used to be the one who’s defending the accused and not
being the accused. However this reversal of position does not entitle him to
disregard the law. Even as an accused he is obligated to obey and uphold the
law. He should have imposed upon himself the duty to follow the orders of
the court and not violate it. In the article written by Judge Hilarion Aquino,
he commented that there seems to be a growing attitude of some lawyers to
establish networks with political agencies of government, with the quasi-
judicial agencies, with the bench and the prosecuting arm. It seems that
Javellana has quite the linkages he needed back then that he simply disobey
the court orders. Javellana was accused and detained during the time when
people with good connections can easily circumvent the law for their own
benefit. We do not say nor deny that this does not occur in our present
society, however we’d like to imprint upon ourselves that this in fact had
existed before and to be faced with this is bewildering.
 4

Eyewitness during the day of Javellana’s supposed detention at Atty.

del Rosario’s residence were documented stating that he was escorted by two
(2) police officer. However both were ordered to leave and was replaced by
another escort. It was later found that he was never escorted to the said
residence nor was put into detention in any penal institution. This disregard
of the court order of Javellana or by people in his camp is an indication that
they do not possess respect towards the court. As already established,
Javellana as a lawyer has the primary duty to obey and uphold the law. When
the law had said that he should be detained and suspended he should have
followed the same. And should have strongly object to any plans or the mere
thought of defying the orders.

The case had happen in a time different from now. Lawyers nowadays
know that infraction of the law will cause their suspension, even worse
disbarment, and they are reminded of this by heart. We can only comment on
the case assigned based on rules that are in effect today. If Atty. Javellana is a
practicing lawyer at present time, his detention and suspension will be
strictly imposed and he be compelled to obey it. The Supreme Court strictly
disciplines its lawyers and justices. A.C. 12475A, recent ruling released by the
Supreme Court to disbar and order the name of a lawyer to be stricken off the
Roll of Attorney immediately for violating Rules 1.01, 16.04, and 18.04 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. “The acts and omissions of respondent
constitute malpractice, gross negligence and gross misconduct in his office as
attorney. His incompetence and appalling indifference to his duty to his
client, the courts and society render him unfit to continue discharging the
trust reposed in him as a member of the Bar,” held the Court.

The foregoing only shows the Supreme Court’s strict discipline

towards lawyers. A lawyer should always remember his oath, be it his guide
in the practice of his profession.

True, that Javellana was later convicted for the crime he has
committed. But his conviction cannot erase the fact that he has violated a
court order when he knows he is oblige to follow it. Javellana was suspended
to engage in the practice of law, thus he was prohibited to accept cases and
represent somebody in trial during the pendency of his case. However he was
not prohibited to represent his self in court. He should have taken this into
his advantage to litigate the case. The trial of the case halted for more than
ten (10) years and was only re-opened when then President Estrada ordered
the same. Javellana, as a lawyer knows that every person has a right to the
speedy disposition of their case. If he’d only used it unto his advantage and
represented his self in the litigation of his case, the same could have been
decided earlier that it had. He could have saved time being in detention if he
has proven himself innocent.
 5

Now is a different time. We have learned much from our experience,

good or bad. The advent of laws further strengthening the discipline of law
practitioners only prove that we aim to improve and rid practices of the old.
Law, perhaps said, is the noblest profession. “Lawyers are motivated not to
earn or gain from it, but to serve one’s fellowmen in view of justice”, Judge
Hilarion Aquino.