Supreme Court reprimands ex-gov't corporate counsel Jurado

The Supreme Court (SC) has reprimanded former government corporate counsel Rudolf Philip Jurado over his issuance of a legal opinion that the tribunal said disregarded existing law.

Acting on a disbarment complaint against Jurado and his former chief of staff Gabriel Guy Olandesca, the Second Division "sternly warned" Jurado "that a repetition of an offense of this character would be much more severely dealt with."

In the October 14 decision, the court dismissed the complaint against Olandesca for "lack of merit." It said Olandesca was only tasked to review and proofread the opinion.

The deputy and the assistant government corporate counsels, Elpidio Vega and Efren Gonzales, and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) sought Jurado and Olandesca's disbarment in 2018.

They alleged Jurado issued an opinion that "unduly extended the authority of the APECO (Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority) to license online gaming activities beyond its territory," supposedly contrary to a prior OGCC opinion saying it is the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (PAGCOR) that has the power to do this.

The complainants said the opinion showed Jurado was biased against PAGCOR, saying he was the lawyer of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) when it filed a petition against the corporation in 2017.

President Rodrigo Duterte also criticized Jurado's legal opinion. He fired Jurado in May 2018.

In the 10-page decision, the SC said the opinion enjoys the presumption that it was "properly issued," despite the fact that Jurado used to be the VACC's lawyer.

"The allegation that respondents unduly preferred APECO over PAGCOR and utilized their public positions to advance their personal interests in issuing Opinion No. 174 is nothing, but bare allegations unsupported by evidence," the court said.

At the same time, the court said Jurado's interpretation of Republic Act No. 9490, Aurora Special Economic Zone Act of 2007, "clearly contravenes another statute and oversteps the bounds of Apeco's jurisdiction."

"It is inconceivable to adopt the opinion issued by Atty. Jurado that the metes and bounds of the Aurora Special Economic Zone is not determinative of APECO's limits of jurisdictional operation," the tribunal said.

It said however there was no clear indication of "bad faith or malice," hence its decision not to impose the "extreme penalty of disbarment."

"It is evident that Atty. Jurado fell short of what is expected of him as a  lawyer in issuing Opinion No. 174 in disregard of an existing  law and jurisprudence, albeit without bad faith," the court said.

"The Court notes that Atty. Jurado, as then Government Corporate Counsel, should not only avoid all impropriety, but also should avoid the appearance of  impropriety in line with the principle that  a public office is a public trust. Verily, any act that falls short of the exacting  standards for public office shall not  be countenanced," it added.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, with concurrences from Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando and Edgardo delos Santos.

Division member Associate Justice Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, who has since gone on disability retirement at 62 years old, was on leave at the time.—LDF, GMA News