AAA vs. Delos Reyes

AAA v. Atty. Antonio Delos Reyes, A.C. No. 10021 and A.C. No.
10022, September 18, 2018, Per Curiam
Facts: 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. She became a
permanent employee with a plantilla position of private secretary 1, pay grade 11, on a co-terminus
status with respondent. She later learned that it was respondent Atty. De Los Reyes who facilitated her
rapid promotion.
Sometime in 1997, respondent started his advances on her. At first, he offered to take her home in his
NHMFC issued service vehicle telling her that her residence was along his route, which then became a
daily routine. Respondent soon became overly possessive and demanding; her telephone calls were
being monitored and would get mad if it was with a male person; she would be called to his office during
office hours simply because he wanted to see her. He also sent or left her love notes.
AAA tried to avoid respondent, but he would use force and abuse her, both verbally and physically.
Much as she wanted to pursue her plan to resign, her financial position at that time left her with no
choice but to continue working as respondent’s secretary. AAA was the sole breadwinner of her family
since her father abandoned them, and her mother was sick. Respondent exploited AAA’s plight to turn
her into a 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. In 2004, AAA filed a complaint before the IBP. Respondent denied
all allegations and argued, among others, that the alleged grounds for disbarment, if they were true, had
already prescribed since they occurred in 1999 or more than three years prior to the institution of the
complaints. The IBP found respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and recommended the penalty of one-year suspension.
Issue: Whether or not respondent committed acts amounting to sexual harassment and gross immoral
conduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility which would warrant his disbarment.
Ruling: Yes. 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 facts show that respondent 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 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 put the legal
profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, thus warranting
disciplinary action from the Court.
Respondent's actions show that he lacks the degree of morality required of him as a member of the legal
profession, thus warranting the penalty of disbarment. Respondent Atty. De Los Reyes is disbarred for
his gross misbehavior, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a
prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law.

AAA vs. Delos Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AAA vs. Delos Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AAA vs. Delos Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AAA v. Atty. Antonio Delos Reyes, A.C. No. 10021 and A.C. No.

10022, September 18, 2018, Per Curiam

You might also like