AAA v. Atty.

De Los Reyes

Provisions: CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01. – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

CANON 7 – A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support
the activities of the integrated bar

Rule 7.03. – A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.

Facts: Before the Court are two administrative complaints filed by complainant AAA seeking the
disbarment of respondent Atty. Antonio De Los Reyes (respondent Atty. De Los Reyes) on the grounds of
sexual harassment and gross immoral conduct. AAA claims that respondent Atty. De Los Reyes violated
the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed acts which are unlawful, dishonest, immoral
and deceitful which warrant his disbarment.

Sometime in February 1997, [AAA] was hired as secretary to [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes], then Vice-
President of the Legal and Administrative Group of [National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation]
NHMFC.

[AAA] became a permanent employee with a plantilla position of private secretary 1, pay grade 11, on a
co-terminus status with [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes]. She later learned that it was [respondent Atty.
De Los Reyes] who facilitated her rapid promotion to her position soon after becoming his secretary.
Sometime in the last quarter of 1997, [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes] offered to take [AAA] home in his
NHMFC issued service vehicle telling her that her residence on J.P. Rizal Street, Makati was along his
route.

On 11 December 1998, when she refused his offer to take her home, he got angry with her and
shouted "putangina mo." She tried to get away from him but he blocked her path, grabbed her arm and
dragged her to the parking area and pushed her inside his service vehicle. He drove off, ignoring her cries
and pleas to stop and let her get off. He slapped her twice and she became hysterical. She opened the
car door and attempted to jump but he was able to grab her jacket and dropped her off somewhere in
Makati. She reported the incident to the police.

[AAA] did not file a formal report or complaint against [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes] as she thought
that it would be futile. She told Atty. Fermin Arzaga [then Senior Vice-President for Finance at NHMFC]
what happened and showed him her bruises on her wrists. She told him of her plan to resign and he
asked her not to resign and instead to request for a transfer. Despite his advice, she sent a resignation
letter that was received by the Personnel Department on 22 December 1998.

Much as she wanted to pursue her plan to resign, [AAA's] financial position at that time left her with no
choice but to continue working as [respondent Atty. De Los Reyes'] secretary.

[Respondent Atty. De Los Reyes] exploited his knowledge to force [AAA] to continue working for him as
his secretary. He moved in on her steadily, making it plain to all that she was his property, isolating her
from the other people in the office who did not want to cross him, dominating and humiliating her
From then on, she became his sex slave who was at his beck and call at all times for all kinds of sexual
services ranging from hand-jobs in his vehicle to sexual intercourse in his office. She could not even
refuse him without risking physical, verbal and emotional abuse.

Issue: WON respondent Atty. De Los Reyes committed acts amounting to sexual harassment and gross
immoral conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility which would warrant his
disbarment.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Antonio N. De Los Reyes GUILTY of gross
immoral conduct and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 7.03, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

In the Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2011, the CBD-IBP Commissioner found respondent
Atty. De Los Reyes guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended the penalty of one (1) year suspension

Ratio:
.
In Valdez v. Dabon, we explained that the possession of good moral character is both a condition
precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the
legal profession, to wit:

Lawyers have been repeatedly reminded by the Court that possession of good moral character is both a
condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession. This proceeds from the lawyer's bounden duty to observe the highest
degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity, and the legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds
and acts constitutive of malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no less than
the highest degree of morality.

The Court explained in Arnobit v. Atty. Arnobit that "as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact
be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in
accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. A member of the bar and an officer of the
court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping a mistress but must also
behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the impression that he is flouting those
moral standards." Consequently, any errant behavior of the lawyer, be it in his public or private activities,
which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to
warrant suspension or disbarment.

Thus, lawyers are duty-bound to observe the highest degree of morality and integrity not only upon
admission to the Bar but also throughout their career in order to safeguard the reputation of the legal
profession. Any errant behavior, be it in their public or private life, may subject them to suspension or
disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly states that members of the Bar may be
disbarred or suspended for any deceit, grossly immoral conduct, or violation of their oath.

In Ventura v. Samson, we explained that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of
the community. It is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the community's sense of decency.

Atty. De Los Reyes is guilty of "sextortion" which is the abuse of his position or authority to obtain sexual
favors from his subordinate, the complainant, his unwilling victim who was not in a position to resist
respondent's demands for fear of losing her means of livelihood. The sexual exploitation of his
subordinate done over a period of time amounts to gross misbehavior on the part of respondent Atty. De
Los Reyes that affects his standing and character as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the Court.
All these deplorable acts of respondent Atty. De Los Reyes puts the legal profession in disrepute and
places the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, thus warranting disciplinary action from the
Court.