“Here’s what I recommend.”
Undersecretary Nicholas Ty’s position is bolstered by strong legal and ethical grounds. By pointing out that the counter-affidavit was notarized without Guo’s physical presence, Ty highlights a violation of Rule 138, Section 3 of the Philippine Rules of Court, which governs the conduct of lawyers and requires them to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and diligence.
Furthermore, Ty’s concerns align with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Atty. De los Santos v. People of the Philippines, A.C. No. 11321 (2022), where a lawyer’s misconduct involving false representations to a court resulted in disbarment. Given that the affidavit submitted on Guo’s behalf directly impacted the DOJ’s ability to process the case efficiently, the defense counsel’s actions can be seen as obstruction of justice, a serious charge in both criminal and disciplinary contexts.
On the other hand, the defense mounted by Gana Atienza Avisado claims adherence to legal norms. Avisado’s statement that they filed a motion to allow Guo’s videoconference testimony suggests an effort to remain within legal bounds. The firm also highlights that they did not directly notarize the counter-affidavit, which they argue absolves them of direct wrongdoing. In Bello v. Office of the Bar Confidant, A.C. No. 13562 (2023), the Supreme Court showed leniency in cases of negligence when no intentional deceit was involved. Avisado’s team may argue that the submission of the affidavit, while flawed, did not constitute deliberate fraud but was a result of miscommunication and logistical challenges stemming from Guo’s absence from the country.
Who will tip the balance?
At this juncture, the DOJ appears to have a stronger case. The submission of a “fake” counter-affidavit, especially in a case as severe as human trafficking, is a serious matter, and the firm’s failure to ensure Guo’s physical presence during notarization could easily be construed as negligent at best, and dishonest at worst. The Supreme Court has historically shown little tolerance for breaches of legal ethics, as seen in cases like lawyer Elmer de la Rosa. While the defense has attempted to deflect blame, the legal standards governing notarization and lawyer conduct are clear, and the firm’s actions may ultimately fail to meet those standards.
Should the Supreme Court find the lawyers guilty of misconduct, they could face serious penalties, including suspension or disbarment. Additionally, they could be subject to civil liabilities if Guo or other parties file lawsuits for damages incurred due to their actions. A ruling against the defense team would also set a precedent, reinforcing the DOJ’s authority to hold lawyers accountable for procedural breaches.
I thus recommen that the DOJ:
• Maintain transparency: To bolster public trust, the DOJ should ensure that all actions taken in this case are transparent and based on clear legal principles.
• Pursue due process: While pursuing accountability, the DOJ should avoid creating the perception of a witch hunt. Ensuring that the lawyers have a fair chance to defend themselves will solidify the integrity of the case.
I also recommend that Gana Atienza Avisado:
• Reinforce legal standards: The firm should prioritize adherence to the highest ethical standards moving forward, ensuring that any future actions are beyond reproach.
• Prepare a strong defense: Given the gravity of the situation, the firm should mount a well-prepared defense, potentially involving expert testimony on the nuances of notarization laws and international legal logistics.
As the defense scrambles to justify its actions, the DOJ’s unwavering commitment to legal ethics is a powerful signal that justice will not be compromised. The ramifications of this case will ripple far beyond the courtroom, reshaping not only the legal profession but also the pillars of the Philippine justice system for years to come.
