DivinaLaw founder Dean Nilo Divina was pleased on Monday that the Supreme Court found no merit to allegations that he had paid for the trips of some lawyers as part of a campaign for the position of chapter governor of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court held that I am innocent of the charge of illegal campaigning in the election for governor of the IBP Central Luzon chapter, and that the sponsoring of trips was not committed relative to any election in the IBP,” Divina said.

He noted that the finding of simple misconduct for his “act of generosity” meant it was done without the manifest elements of corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules.

“My commitment to upholding the highest standards of professional conduct remains unwavering, and I reaffirm my dedication to ethical practices in all my professional dealings and interactions,” Divina stressed.

He said he would appeal the SC’s finding of simple misconduct against him for sponsoring the trips of some members of the IBP chapter.

Divina said he would provide in his motion the context for his actions for which he and six other lawyers were fined P100,000 each by the SC.

“I sincerely hope that by providing additional context, the Supreme Court will appreciate my perspective,” Divina said.

Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Amy Lazaro-Javier dissented from the majority.

Said the dissenting opinion:

“Nevertheless, for Attorney Divina to be held administratively liable, there must be an act that constitutes an offense. Even then, to be punishable, it must not only be contradictory to existing laws and jurisprudence, it must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. For an accusation of bad faith must be proven; it cannot be presumed, and that burden rests on the party who pleads it. As the ponencia wrote, there is no semblance of illegal activities on the part of Attorney Divina.”

“Neither did the Anonymous Complaint detail by evidence that his acts were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. It is merely presumption after presumption of malice unfairly directed to him. “Wow, he is giving this much, this means he is up to something… Surely we cannot acquiesce to this travesty. We cannot condemn a person on bare allegations. Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof as it is essentially self-serving devoid of any evidentiary weight.”

Divina said he sponsored the trips to Balesin Island Club and to Bali, Indonesia as part of the duty of every lawyer to help the organization fulfill its objectives.

Also fined by the SC were lawyers Peter Paul Maglalang, Winston Ginez, Jocelyn Clemente, Jade Paulo Molo, Enrique dela Cruz Jr., and Jose dela Rama Jr. as the recipients of the gifts.

Anonymous complaint

The 30 July decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan stemmed from an anonymous letter-complaint that claimed that Divina was involved in illegal IBP chapter campaign activities.

In his comment, Divina said his sponsorship of the activities of IBP Central Luzon officials was unconditional and born out of goodwill, as he wanted to give back to the legal community.

Likewise, he said, his sponsorship of IBP activities was not limited to the Central Luzon chapter as he has been supporting the IBP since 2012 through Christmas parties, golf tournaments, regional conventions, and the like.

While he was encouraged to run for IBP governor, he said he rejected the idea because of his numerous obligations, including being dean of the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law.

The SC said in its en banc decision that Divina did not engage in any illegal campaign activities as there was no evidence that he has or had any intention of running for the position of governor of IBP Central Luzon.

“While the act of Attorney Divina of sponsoring the trip to the Balesin Island Club in Polilio, Quezon and Bali, Indonesia of the IBP Central Luzon officers might appear extravagant and excessive, we do not find the same to have been committed relative to any election in the IBP,” the Court said.

It said the narration of Clemente, who said she was asked what position she wanted should Divina become IBP governor, showed that it was Maglalang who asked her the question and not Divina.

Clemente’s statements about a plan to make Divina IBP governor “appear to be merely conjectures and surmises,” the SC said. It pointed out that when Divina sponsored the trips, the IBP delegates who would nominate and elect the governor for each chapter had yet to be selected.

The Balesin trip was also a team-building activity, it pointed out.

The SC said it acknowledged the IBP’s invaluable and immeasurable contributions to the legal community, and was handing down the ruling to preserve the institution’s integrity, impartiality, and independence.

“The instant case serves not to dissuade the members of the IBP but to encourage them to take active part in its activities tempered with propriety and dignified conduct,” it said.