The Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by manipulating a child witness in a rape case. Atty. Pallugna, counsel for the accused, engaged in deceitful conduct by offering money to the victim, influencing her to avoid court hearings, and exploiting her vulnerability. This decision underscores the severe consequences for lawyers who obstruct justice and betray the trust placed in them, especially when it involves the exploitation of vulnerable individuals.

When Counsel Becomes the Corruptor: How a Lawyer’s Deceit Led to Disbarment

This case revolves around the actions of Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna, who represented Michael John Collins in a rape case involving a minor, AAA. The Philippine Island Kids International Foundation, Inc. (PIKIFI) filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Pallugna, alleging that he had engaged in unethical and unlawful conduct to undermine the case against his client. The core issue is whether Atty. Pallugna’s actions, including offering money to the victim and concealing her whereabouts, constituted a violation of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the court.

PIKIFI alleged that Atty. Pallugna, through an intermediary, Sheena Maglinte, persuaded AAA not to appear in court hearings in exchange for money. It was revealed that Atty. Pallugna used his own establishment, Flamenco Cafe & Bar, as a meeting place to contact AAA. Furthermore, PIKIFI claimed that Atty. Pallugna facilitated the relocation of AAA and her boyfriend, BBB, to Maramag, Bukidnon, under the guise of employment, to prevent AAA from testifying. This concealment was allegedly done through Black Water Security Agency, a business owned by Atty. Pallugna. The organization also noted that the lawyer did the same thing in another criminal case filed in 2010 for sexual abuse of a minor, DDD, by sending her to Davao City for her to refrain from appearing in court.

Atty. Pallugna denied the allegations, stating that he had merely offered BBB a job as a security guard and that AAA’s presence in Maramag was coincidental. He argued that his actions were not intended to obstruct justice or influence AAA’s testimony. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), however, found Atty. Pallugna’s explanations implausible and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law. The IBP cited violations of Canon 1, Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 1.03; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; Canon 10, Rule 10.03; Canon 12, Rule 12.07; and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the CPR.

The Supreme Court adopted the IBP’s findings but modified the penalty to disbarment, emphasizing the grave nature of Atty. Pallugna’s misconduct. The Court noted that lawyers have a duty to uphold the law, assist in the administration of justice, and abstain from any conduct that undermines public confidence in the legal profession. Canon 1 of the CPR mandates that lawyers uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rules 1.01 to 1.03 further prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct, counseling activities aimed at defiance of the law, or encouraging suits or proceedings for corrupt motives.

Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the CPR requires lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and avoid conduct that adversely reflects on their fitness to practice law. In this case, Atty. Pallugna’s actions were found to be a gross violation of these standards. The Court highlighted that Atty. Pallugna’s secret meetings with the child victim, AAA, without the presence or knowledge of her legal representatives, were utterly unethical. The fact that he offered money to AAA to dissuade her from attending court hearings demonstrated a blatant disregard for the legal process and the pursuit of justice. This behavior was a clear manipulation and exploitation of a vulnerable individual, which significantly discredited the legal profession.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that Atty. Pallugna’s attempt to conceal AAA’s whereabouts by relocating her to Maramag, Bukidnon, under false pretenses, constituted a serious obstruction of justice. This action not only delayed the proceedings but also made a mockery of the court. Canon 10, Rule 10.01, and Rule 10.03 of the CPR demand that lawyers owe candor, fairness, and good faith to the court and must not do any falsehood or misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice. Atty. Pallugna’s actions directly contravened these principles, as he attempted to exploit procedural rules to secure his client’s acquittal, despite knowing that AAA’s absence was a result of his own machinations.

The Court further explained that while lawyers are given the liberty to defend their clients with utmost zeal, this obligation is not without limitations. The responsibility to protect and advance the interests of a client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. As stated in the case,

“A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party.”

This principle underscores that lawyers must act within the bounds of the law and ethical standards, even when zealously advocating for their clients. The Court pointed out that this was not the first time Atty. Pallugna had been found to have abused and misused the rules of procedure, citing his previous suspension from the practice of law.

The court emphasized that the circumstances surrounding AAA’s case and the similar allegations made by DDD demonstrated a pattern of behavior on the part of Atty. Pallugna. The court stated that his silence, in this case, could be construed as an admission of the charges against him. In Domingo-Agaton v. Atty. Cruz, the Court held that:

“[i]t is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in such cases is almost always construed as implied admission of the truth thereof.”

The court found that, based on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Atty. Pallugna’s actions warranted disbarment. The law states:

“A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice…”

Considering that this was not Atty. Pallugna’s first offense, the court held that a harsher penalty was warranted. The Supreme Court concluded that Atty. Alejandro Jose C. Pallugna had clearly violated his Lawyer’s Oath and the Canons of the CPR. The Court ordered his disbarment from the practice of law, with his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. This decision serves as a stern warning to all lawyers that any act of deceit, dishonesty, or obstruction of justice will be met with severe consequences.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Pallugna violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) by manipulating a child witness in a rape case. The Court examined whether his actions constituted deceitful conduct and obstruction of justice.
What specific actions did Atty. Pallugna take that led to his disbarment?	Atty. Pallugna offered money to the victim, AAA, to dissuade her from attending court hearings. He also facilitated the relocation of AAA and her boyfriend to Maramag, Bukidnon, to prevent her from testifying, and used his own business to conceal her whereabouts.
What Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) did Atty. Pallugna violate?	Atty. Pallugna violated Canon 1, Rules 1.01 to 1.03; Canon 7, Rule 7.03; Canon 10, Rule 10.01 and 10.03; Canon 12, Rule 12.07; and Canon 19, Rule 19.01 of the CPR. These canons pertain to upholding the law, maintaining integrity, ensuring fairness to the court, and avoiding deceitful conduct.
What was the IBP’s recommendation in this case?	The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended that Atty. Pallugna be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years. The Supreme Court adopted the findings but increased the penalty to disbarment.
Why did the Supreme Court decide to disbar Atty. Pallugna instead of suspending him?	The Supreme Court decided to disbar Atty. Pallugna due to the gravity of his misconduct, including dishonesty, deceit, and obstruction of justice. Additionally, the Court took into account that this was not Atty. Pallugna’s first offense.
What is the significance of this case for other lawyers in the Philippines?	This case serves as a stern warning to all lawyers about the severe consequences of engaging in unethical conduct, especially when it involves exploiting vulnerable individuals or obstructing justice. It reinforces the importance of upholding the Lawyer’s Oath and the Canons of the CPR.
How did PIKIFI become involved in this case?	PIKIFI, a non-governmental organization, provided assistance to the child victim, AAA, after she was rescued from a prostitution ring. They helped AAA file a complaint against the accused and later filed the disbarment complaint against Atty. Pallugna.
What was Atty. Pallugna’s defense against the allegations?	Atty. Pallugna denied the allegations, claiming that he had merely offered BBB a job as a security guard and that AAA’s presence in Maramag was coincidental. He argued that his actions were not intended to obstruct justice or influence AAA’s testimony.
Did the Supreme Court find Atty. Pallugna’s defense credible?	No, the Supreme Court, adopting the IBP’s findings, found Atty. Pallugna’s explanations implausible and lacking credibility. The Court determined that his actions were deliberately aimed at obstructing justice and undermining the case against his client.
What rule in the Rules of Court allows for the disbarment or suspension of Attorneys?	Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the basis for disbarment or suspension of attorneys by the Supreme Court for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, or any violation of the oath taken before admission to practice.

This decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards within the legal profession and protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. By disbarring Atty. Pallugna, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that lawyers who engage in deceitful and dishonest conduct will face the most severe consequences. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and upholding the rule of law, even when zealously advocating for a client.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PHILIPPINE ISLAND KIDS INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. (PIKIFI) VS. ATTY. ALEJANDRO JOSE C. PALLUGNA, A.C. No. 11653, November 23, 2021