Anonymous Complaint against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian Jr.

AC No. 5900, April 10, 2019

Reyes, J. Jr., J.:

Doctrine:

Lawyers, aside from being competent and adept in dealing with the intricacies of
the law must also be individuals of honor and virtue. Legal knowledge and ability,
without the guidance of morals and justice, is a dangerous tool, which may harm,
instead of uplift others.

Atty. Co Unitian, Jr.’s responsibilities and expectations are even more heightened
because he is a law professor, He should be a beacon of righteous and conscientious
conduct. As a molder of minds of soon to-be-lawyers, should guide his students to
behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the legal profession.
Instead, he abused his position of authority creating an offensive and uncomfortable
atmosphere in school.

Facts:

On May 14, 2002, an anonymous complaint was filed against Atty.

Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr., alleging that he has sexually harassed three (3) of his
students in Xavier University.

Toyco claimed that Atty. Untian initially expressed amorous interest when he sent
her flowers anonymously through another law student. She stated that latter would often
text her through the phone of another law student. Later, she found out that Atty. Untian
texted her through his own phone where he would send romantic messages, poems,
love notes and sweet nothings. She said also that he invited her to go to Camiguin but
she turned it down. Such unwelcome advances made Toyco feel degraded as she could
not easily ignore him for fear of reprisal.

Sagarbarria narrated that he showed her a photograph of a naked woman who looked
like her. She denied that she was not the woman because she had distinctive mark on
her back She averred that the incident caused her depression to the point that she was
not able to participate in a scheduled moot court competition because she broke down
in the middle of practice and cried uncontrollably.

Meanwhile, Dal narrated that in one of her recitations during the respondent’s class, she
clarified a question propounded to her saying, “Sir, come again?”. Respondent retorted
“What you want me to come again? I have not come the first time and don’t you know
that it took him five minutes to come and you want me to come again? She learned that
respondent would narrate the said student to almost of all his classes. She felt offenses
that she was subjected to such sexually charged language and the fact that her
embarrassment was retold in other classes.
 He alleged that the students were only making such allegations because they
failed his subject for the 2001-2002 school year. He further claimed that his lewd actions
are without malice and are only “jokes”. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of
Governors (IBP-BOG) resolved to disbar Co Untian on the grounds of gross immoral
conduct, but the later moved for reconsideration. In its 2017 Extended Resolution,
Director Ramon S. Esguerra explained that respondent is not guilty of sexual
harassment as defined in RA 7877, and that Co-Untian should only be penalized with a
two-year suspension.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Atty. Co Untian’s actions towards the students concerned constitute
sexual harassment as defined by RA 7877 and pertinent rules and regulations
2. Whether or not Atty. Co Untian be held administratively liable

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Court emphasized that RA 7877 does not require that the victim had
acceded to the sexual desires of the abuser. Further, it is not necessary that a
demand or request for sexual favor is articulated in a categorical manner as it may
be discerned from the acts of the offender. In addition, sexual harassment is also
committed in an educational environment when the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Hence, Atty. Co Untian’ s actions
towards the students concerned constitute sexual harassment as defined by the
said act.

2. Yes, Atty. Co Untian violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR which provides that a lawyer
shall not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. In
addition, he also violated Canon 7 of CPR which mandates that lawyers shall,
always, uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Further, Rule 7.03 of
the CPR commands lawyers not to engage in conduct that adversely reflects on is
fitness to practice law or behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

Members of the bar are measured in a more demanding light because their actions
or inactions not only affect themselves but also the legal profession and the public’s
trust and respect for the law. Lawyers, aside from being competent and adept in
dealing with the intricacies of the law must also be individuals of honor and virtue.
Legal knowledge and ability, without the guidance of morals and justice, is a
dangerous tool, which may harm, instead of uplift others.

Atty. Co Unitian, Jr.’s responsibilities and expectations are even more heightened
because he is a law professor, He should be a beacon of righteous and
conscientious conduct. As a molder of minds of soon to-be-lawyers, should guide
his students to behave and act in a manner consistent with the lofty standards of the
legal profession. Instead, he abused his position of authority creating an offensive
and uncomfortable atmosphere in school. Moreover, he failed to acknowledge the
consequences of his actions and disregarded the hurt his students felt.

The Court suspended him from the practice of law for five years and 10 years from
teaching law in any school with a stern warning that a repetition of same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely.