Can. 9-10 Case Digests

ATTY. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMAN N OE-LACSAMANA A vs. ATTY. ATTY. YOLANDO F. ATTY. ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE BUSMENTE A.C. No. 7269. November 23, 2!! F"#$s% Noe-Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides, the th e plainti in a Civil Case before the RTC RTC of Pasi Cit!, while Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B" #laso #l aso $#laso%" Noe-Lacsamana alleed that #laso&s deed of sale over the propert! was annulled, which resulted in the 'lin of an e(ectment case, Civil Case )*+, where Busmente appeared as counsel" nother case for falsi'cation was led aainst #laso where Busmente also appeared as counsel" NoeLacsamana alleed that tt!" .li/abeth 0ela Rosa or tt!" Li/a 0ela Rosa $0ela Rosa% would accompan! #laso in court, pro(ectin herself as Busmente&s Bus mente&s collaboratin counsel" 0ela Rosa sined the minutes of the court proceedins in the civil case nine n ine times time s from *1 November *223 to + 4ebruar! *221" * 221" #pon veri'cation with this Court and the Interated Bar of the t he Philippines, Philippines , Noe-Lacsamana discovered dis covered that 0ela Rosa was not a law!er" Busmente’s contention: 0ela Rosa, a law raduate, was his paraleal assistant for a few !ears 0ela Rosa&s emplo!ment emplo!m ent with him ended in *222 but 0ela Rosa was able to continue misrepresentin herself hers elf as a law!er with the help of Reine 5acasieb $5acasieb%, Busmente&s former secretar!" Busmente did not represent #laso # laso in Civil Case No" )*+ and that his sinature in the nswer presented as proof b! Noe-Lacsamana was fored"

a"

•

•

•

•

•

• 

•

•

•

Iss&e% 6hether Busmente is uilt! of directl! or indirectl! assistin 0ela Rosa in her illeal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law" '&()*+% Canon )"  law!er shall not, directl! directl ! or indirectl!, assist in the unauthori/ed practice of law"  The term 7practice of law7 implies customaril! customaril! or habituall! holdin oneself out to the public p ublic as a law!er for compensation a s a source of livelihood or in consideration cons ideration of his services $identif!in oneself as attorne!, appearin in court in representation of a client, or associatin ass ociatin oneself as a part ner of a law o8ce for the eneral practice of law% Public polic! re9uires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found dul! 9uali'ed in education and character" The purpose is to protect the public, the court, co urt, the client , and the bar from f rom the incompeten ce or dishonest! dishonest ! of those unlicensed unlicens ed to practice law  The law ma:es ma:es it a misbehavior misbehavior on his part, sub(ect to disciplinar! action, to aid a la!man in the unauthori/ed practice of law Busmente alleed that 0ela Rosa&s emplo!ment in ended in *222 and that 0ela Rosa was able to continue with her illeal practice of law throuh connivance with 5acasieb" Busmente claimed that 5acasieb resined from his o8ce in *223" ;et, 0ela Rosa continued to t o represent #laso until *221" *22 1" Pleadins and court notices were still sent to Busmente&s o8ce until *221" The IBP-CB0 noted that 0ela Rosa&s pract ice should have ended in *223 * 223 when 5acasieb left" 6e aree" It would have been impossible for 0ela Rosa to continue representin #laso in the case, cas e, considerin Busmente&s B usmente&s claim that 5acasieb alread! resined, if 0ela Rosa had no access to the 'les in Busmente&s o8ce" Busmente, in his motion for reconsideration, submitted a cop! of the NBI report statin that the sinature on the nswer submitted s ubmitted in Civil Case No" )*+ )* + and the specimen sinatures submitted b! Busmente were not written b! one and the same person" The IBP-CB0 report, however, showed that there were other documents sined b! Busmente, includin the Pre-T Pre-Trial Brief and 5otion to t o Lift r > r", three !ears ! ears old D both of whom wh om are in complainant&s custod!" Complainant 'led a case for the annulment of her marriae with respondent @ometime in the middle of 0ecember *22F, respondent went to complainant&s residence and demanded the surrender of the custod! of their two minor children" =e showed complainant com plainant a photocop! of an alleed Resolution issued b! the th e Court of ppeals which supposedl! ranted his motion for temporar! child custod!" Complainant called up her law!er but the latter informed her that he had h ad not received an! motion for temporar! child custod! 'led b! respondent" Complainant as:ed respondent for the oriinal cop! of the alleed resolution of the Court of ppeals, but respondent failed to ive it to her" Complainant then eGamined the resolution closel! and noted that it bore two dates? November F*, *22F and November *), *22F" @ensin somethin amiss, amiss , she refused to to ive custod! cust od! of their t heir children to t o respondent" In >anuar! F1, *22*, while complainant was with her children in the BC Learnin Center respondent, accompanied b! b ! armed men, suddenl! arrived and demanded that she surrender to him the custod! of their children" =e threatened to forcefull! forcefull ! ta:e them awa! with the help of his companions, whom he claimed to be aents a ents of the t he National Bureau of Investiation" larmed, complainant immediatel! souht the assistance of the Tan(a! Cit! Cit ! Police" The Th e respondin policemen subse9uentl! escorted her to the police station where wh ere the matter matt er could be clari'ed cl ari'ed and settled peacefull!" t the police station, respondent caused to be entered in the Police Blotter a statement that he, assisted b! b ! aents of the t he NBI, formall! served on complainant the appellate court&s resolutionHorder" In order to diuse the tension, complainant comp lainant areed t o allow the children to sleep with respondent for one niht on condition that he would not ta:e ta :e them awa! from Tan(a! Cit!"  The neGt da!, da!, complainant complainant received received information information that a van arrived at the t he hotel where whe re respondent and the children were sta!in to ta:e them to Bacolod Cit! Cit !" Complainant rushed to the hotel and too: the children to another room, where the! sta!ed" s ta!ed" anuar! *3, *22*, respondent respondent did not appear appear" Conse9uentl!, the petition was dismissed" complainant 'led the instant complaint allein that respondent violated vi olated his attorne!&s oath b! manufacturin, auntin and usin a spurious Court of ppeals& Resolution in and outside a court co urt of law" 4urthermore, respondent abused and misused the privilee ranted to him b! the @upreme Court to practice law in the countr! c ountr!"" fter respondent

answered the complaint, the matter was referred to the IBP-Commission on Bar 0iscipline for investiation, report and recommendation Iss&e% whether or not the respondent can be held administrativel! liable for his reliance on and attempt to enforce a spurious Resolution of the Court of ppeals

•

•

'&()*+% Respondent claims that he acted in ood faith in invo:in the Court of ppeals Resolution which he honestl! believed to be authentic" This, however, is belied b! the fact that he used and presented the spurious Resolution two times? 'rst, in his Petition for Issuance of 6rit of =abeas Corpus doc:eted as @pecial Proc" Case No" 3+)+, J which he 'led with the Reional Trial Court of 0umauete Cit! @econd, when he souht the assistance of the Philippine National Police $PNP% of Tan(a! Cit! to recover custod! of his minor children from complainant" @ince it was respondent who used the spurious Resolution, he is presumed to have participated in its fabrication" Candor and fairness are demanded of ever! law!er" $CNarder%" tt!" Bancolo, however, admitted that prior to the preparation of the >oint nswer, tt!" >arder threatened to 'le a disbarment case aainst him if he did not cooperate" Thus, he was constrained to allow tt!" >arder to prepare the >oint nswer" tt!" Bancolo simpl! sined the veri'cation without seein the contents of the >oint nswer"  The complainants did not present an! evidence that tt!" >arder was directl! involved, had :nowlede of, or even participated in the wronful practice of tt!" Bancolo in allowin or toleratin his secretar! to sin pleadins for him" Thus, we aree with the ndin of the IBP Board that tt!" >arder is not administrativel! liable" •

'OD'IO E. TAAY 4 ANTONY . 'USTIA vs . ATTY. CA'LIE L. BANCOLO 4 ATTY. ANUS T. A'DE' A.C. No. 960. M"r#5 2, 2!3 F"#$s% @ometime in *22, Tapa! and Rustia received an anus T" >arder for lac: of merit" 6e @#@P.N0 tt!" Charlie L" Bancolo from the practice of law for F !ear

ETE'NAL A'DENS MEMO'IAL A' CO'O'ATION, vs COU'T OF AEALS "* SS. LILIA SE8ILLA "*  OSE SEELIN .'. No. !2369. A&+&s$ /, !99 F"#$s on 5a! F+, F)+F private respondent-spouses >ose @eelin and Lilia @evilla @eelin 'led a complaint aainst Central 0!ein  4inishin Corporation $Central 0!ein for brevit!% for 9uietin of title and for declaration of nullit! of Transfer Certi'cate of Title $TCT No" *21)*% issued in the name of said corporation  The trial court rendered (udment in favor of the spouses which was a8rmed b! the Court of ppeals @ubse9uentl!, private respondents 'led an #rent 5anifestation and 5otion for an Immediate 6rit of PossessionHBrea: #)e*$ "m)*)s$r"$)o* o; &s$)#e. T5e1 s5o&( *o$, $5ere;ore, m)s&se $5e r&(es o;  ro#e&re $o e;e"$ $5e e*s o; &s$)#e or &*&(1 e("1 " #"se, )mee $5e e?e#&$)o* o; " &+me*$ or m)s&se #o&r$ ro#esses the petition is hereb! 0.NI.0 •

•

•

•

•

•