Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

Chu Vs Guico

Atty. Jose S. Guico, Jr. was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000 from Chu to secure a favorable decision from the NLRC, which he failed to deliver. The court ruled that Guico's actions constituted unlawful and dishonest conduct, leading to his disbarment from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name has been ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Uploaded by

Jyzel Cris Factor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

Chu Vs Guico

Atty. Jose S. Guico, Jr. was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000 from Chu to secure a favorable decision from the NLRC, which he failed to deliver. The court ruled that Guico's actions constituted unlawful and dishonest conduct, leading to his disbarment from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name has been ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

Uploaded by

Jyzel Cris Factor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability

Chu vs. Guico, Jr.


January 13, 2015 A.C. No. 10573 Regalado, J.
Recit Ready Synopsis
Chu hired Atty. Guico to represent his company in labor disputes. After an unfavorable decision, Atty. Guico asked Chu
to pay a substantial amount to the NLRC Commissioner to secure a favorable outcome. Chu paid P300,000, received
an alleged draft decision, and was asked for an additional P300,000. Chu provided P280,000, but no receipt was given.
Despite the payments, the NLRC ruled against Chu's company. Atty. Guico filed unsuccessful motions, leading Chu to
terminate his services and file a disbarment complaint. The IBP found Atty. Guico guilty of violating professional
responsibility rules and recommended a three-year suspension.

The issue resolved was whether Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 , Canon I of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favourable decision
from the NLRC.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JOSE S. GUICO, JR. GUILTY of the violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him from
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
Provisions/Concepts/Doctrines and How Applied to the Case
Canon II Code of Professional Responsibility
A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain the appearance of propriety in personal and professional
dealings, observe honesty, respect and courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the
highest standards of ethical behavior.

SECTION 1. Proper conduct. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. ( Rule
1.01, Rule 1.02)
FACTS
Chu retained Atty. Guico as legal counsel to handle his company's labor disputes. After a decision was
rendered adversely to Chu's company, Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial amount of money to be given to
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Commissioner handling his appeal, in an attempt to secure a
favorable decision. Chu delivered P300,000.00 to Atty. Guico, who then provided him with a copy of an alleged draft
decision of the NLRC in favor of his company.

Subsequently, Atty. Guico informed Chu that he needed to raise an additional P300,000 to encourage the NLRC
Commissioner to issue the decision. However, Chu could only produce P280,000.00. Atty. Guico's assistant received
the money without issuing any receipt. Chu followed up on the case's status but was asked to wait. He was assured
that if the NLRC Commissioner did not accept the money, Atty. Guico would return it.

Despite the payments, the NLRC eventually promulgated a decision adverse to Chu's company. In
response, Atty. Guico filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal, both of which were subsequently denied. Chu
then terminated Atty. Guico's services and filed a disbarment complaint against him, alleging gross misconduct.

Atty. Guico denied Chu's allegations. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found that Atty. Guico
had violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon II of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recommended a
three-year suspension as a consequence of his actions.
ISSUE/S (relevant to the syllabus)
Whether or not Guico violated the Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 , Canon I of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for demanding and receiving P580,000.00 from Chu to guarantee a favourable decision from the NLRC.
RULING (include how the law was applied)
Yes.
The sworn obligation to respect the law and the legal processes under the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility is a continuing condition for every lawyer to retain membership in the Legal Profession.

Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to raise the large sums of money in
order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption; a nd
under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well
as in the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.

DISPOSITIVE

ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent ATTY. JOSE S. GUICO, JR. GUILTY of the violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, and Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him from
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. His name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
ADDITIONAL NOTES

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy