UST law dean found guilty of simple misconduct

THE Supreme Court (SC) has found lawyer Nilo Divina guilty of simple misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) for committing impropriety when he sponsored the trips to Balesin island resort in 2022 and to Bali, Indonesia in 2023 of officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Central Luzon chapter and providing them cash and gift checks worth “several hundreds of thousands of pesos.”

Divina is the dean of the UST Faculty of Civil Law. He is also the founder and managing partner of the Divina Law firm.

In an en banc decision dated July 30 but only made public Monday, the SC through Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan imposed a fine of P100,000 on Divina, who is a member of the IBP-Tarlac chapter, and issued a “’stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.”

To recall, an anonymous letter dated March 24, 2023 alleged that Divina engaged in illegal campaigning as part of his plans to be elected IBP-Central Luzon governor.

The letter sender said Divina took current IBP-Central Luzon officers to Balesin Island Club in 2022 and to Bali, Indonesia in 2023, and provided them with cash and gift checks totaling hundreds of thousands of pesos.

The allegations prompted the SC to stop the election of officers of the IBP-Central Luzon chapter as it probed Divina’s alleged illegal campaign activities.

Divina has denied engaging in illegal campaign acts, saying he is not a candidate for any IBP post.

He also told the SC that the activities he sponsored for members of the IBP-Central Luzon were “unconditional and borne out of goodwill” and that his generosity is only a “way of giving back to the legal community.”

Divina also said his sponsorship of IBP activities was not limited to its Central Luzon chapter but also to other chapters from Manila, Makati, Quezon City, Cebu, Bicol and Misamis Oriental.

But the SC en banc held that Divina “committed impropriety” in sponsoring the trips in violation of Canon II, Sections 1 and 2 of the CPRA.

It also said that the provision of the gifts “create a sense of obligation on the recipients to repay gratitude in the future.”

“Notably