FIRST DIVISION extorted money from different people with the promise of processing their

passports and marriages to foreigners, but she reneged on her promise.

Likewise, this disbarment complaint is politically motivated: some politicians
Adm. Case No. 6290             July 14, 2004
offered to re-hire the complainant and her cohorts should they initiate this
complaint, which they did and for which they were re-hired. The respondent
ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA, complainant, also flaunted the fact that she had received numerous awards and citations
vs. for civic works and exemplary service to the community. She then prayed
ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO, respondent. for the dismissal of the disbarment case for being baseless.

The IBP referred this case to Investigating Commissioner Atty. Kenny H.

Tantuico.
RESOLUTION
During the hearing on 30 August 2000, the parties agreed that the
complainant would submit a Reply to respondent's Answer, while the
respondent would submit a Rejoinder to the Reply. The parties also agreed
that the Complaint, Answer, and the attached affidavits would constitute as
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: the respective direct testimonies of the parties and the affiants. 11

In a verified complaint for disbarment filed with the Committee on Bar In her Reply, the complainant bolstered her claim that the respondent
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on 30 May 2000, cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her husband by submitting (1)
complainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former employee of respondent Atty. the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office12 where the name of Felicisimo
Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the latter with deceit, R. Tenorio, Jr., is listed as a senior partner; and (2) a Sagip Communication
grossly immoral conduct, and malpractice or other gross misconduct in Radio Group identification card13 signed by the respondent as Chairperson
office. where her husband is identified as "Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr." She
added that respondent's husband even appeared in court hearings.
On deceit, the complainant alleged that the respondent has been falsely
representing herself to be married to Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., who has a In her Rejoinder, respondent averred that she neither formed a law
prior and subsisting marriage with another woman. However, through partnership with her husband nor allowed her husband to appear in court on
spurious means, the respondent and Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., were able to her behalf. If there was an instance that her husband appeared in court, he
obtain a false marriage contract, 1 which states that they were married on 10 did so as a representative of her law firm. The letterhead submitted by the
February 1980 in Manila. Certifications from the Civil Registry of Manila 2  complainant was a false reproduction to show that her husband is one of
and the National Statistics Office (NSO) 3 prove that no record of marriage her law partners. But upon cross-examination, when confronted with the
exists between them. The false date and place of marriage between the two letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office bearing her signature, she admitted
are stated in the birth certificates of their two children, Donnabel Tenorio 4  that Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he and a certain Gerardo
and Felicisimo Tenorio III. 5 But in the birth certificates of their two other A. Panghulan, who is also not a lawyer, are named as senior partners
children, Oliver Tenorio6 and John Cedric Tenorio, 7 another date and place because they have investments in her law office. 14
of marriage are indicated, namely, 12 February 1980 in Malaybalay,
Bukidnon. The respondent further declared that she married Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.,
on 12 February 1980 in Quezon City, but when she later discovered that
As to grossly immoral conduct, the complainant alleged that the respondent their marriage contract was not registered she applied for late registration
caused the dissemination to the public of a libelous affidavit derogatory to on 5 April 2000. She then presented as evidence a certified copy of the
Makati City Councilor Divina Alora Jacome. The respondent would often marriage contract issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar General and
openly and sarcastically declare to the complainant and her co-employees authenticated by the NSO. The erroneous entries in the birth certificates of
the alleged immorality of Councilor Jacome. her children as to the place and date of her marriage were merely an
oversight.15
On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the complainant alleged
that the respondent (1) cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her Sometime after the parties submitted their respective Offer of Evidence and
husband, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar; (2) converted her Memoranda, the complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint on 13
client's money to her own use and benefit, which led to the filing of an November 2002 after allegedly realizing that this disbarment complaint
estafa case against her; and (3) threatened the complainant and her family arose out of a misunderstanding and misappreciation of facts. Thus, she is
on 24 January 2000 with the statement "Isang bala ka lang" to deter them no longer interested in pursuing the case. This motion was not acted upon
from divulging respondent's illegal activities and transactions. by the IBP.

In her answer, the respondent denied all the allegations against her. As to In her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 2003, IBP
the charge of deceit, she declared that she is legally married to Felicisimo Commissioner on Bar Discipline Milagros V. San Juan found that the
R. Tenorio, Jr. They were married on 12 February 1980 as shown by their complainant failed to substantiate the charges of deceit and grossly immoral
Certificate of Marriage, Registry No. 2000-9108 of the Civil Registry of conduct. However, she found the respondent guilty of the charge of
Quezon City.8 Her husband has no prior and subsisting marriage with cooperating in the illegal practice of law by Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in
another woman. violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility based on the following evidence: (1) the letterhead of Cristal-
Tenorio Law Office, which lists Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., as a senior
As to the charge of grossly immoral conduct, the respondent denied that partner; (2) the Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card of
she caused the dissemination of a libelous and defamatory affidavit against "Atty. Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.," signed by respondent as Chairperson; (3)
Councilor Jacome. On the contrary, it was Councilor Jacome who caused and the Order dated 18 June 1997 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court in
the execution of said document. Additionally, the complainant and her Criminal Cases Nos. 20729 – 20734, wherein Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr.,
cohorts are the rumormongers who went around the city of Makati on the entered his appearance as counsel and even moved for the provisional
pretext of conducting a survey but did so to besmirch respondent's good dismissal of the cases for failure of the private complainants to appear and
name and reputation. for lack of interest to prosecute the said cases. Thus, Commissioner San
Juan recommended that the respondent be reprimanded.
The charge of malpractice or other gross misconduct in office was likewise
denied by the respondent. She claimed that her Cristal-Tenorio Law In its Resolution No. XVI-2003-228 dated 25 October 2003, the IBP Board
Office is registered with the Department of Trade and Industry as a single of Governors adopted and approved with modification the Report and
proprietorship, as shown by its Certificate of Registration of Business Recommendation of Commissioner San Juan. The modification consisted in
Name.9 Hence, she has no partners in her law office. As to the estafa case, increasing the penalty from reprimand to suspension from the practice of
the same had already been dropped pursuant to the Order of 14 June 1996 law for six months with a warning that a similar offense in the future would
issued by Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.10 The be dealt with more severely.
respondent likewise denied that she threatened the complainant with the
words "Isang bala ka lang" on 24 January 2000.
We agree with the findings and conclusion of Commissioner San Juan as
approved and adopted with modification by the Board of Governors of the
Further, the respondent averred that this disbarment complaint was filed by IBP.
the complainant to get even with her. She terminated complainant's
employment after receiving numerous complaints that the complainant
At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The
Withdraw Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the
Rayos,16 we declared: incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to
see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to
complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of
be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by,
suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on
interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the
his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized
facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral
practice of law.21
conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of
disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not
in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the WHEREFORE, for culpable violation of Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code
respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no of Professional Responsibility, respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio
private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are months effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of the same
undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to
answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The
Let copies of this Resolution be attached to respondent Cristal-Tenorio's
complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the
record as attorney in this Court and furnished to the IBP and the Office of
attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts.
interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper
administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the
respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of SO ORDERED.
complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.

Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment

case should proceed accordingly.

The IBP correctly found that the charges of deceit and grossly immoral
conduct were not substantiated. In disbarment proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving his case by convincing evidence. 17 
With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the charge of
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office, the respondent is not yet
convicted thereof. In Gerona vs. Datingaling,18 we held that when the
criminal prosecution based on the same act charged is still pending in court,
any administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act must await the
outcome of the criminal case to avoid contradictory findings.

We, however, affirm the IBP's finding that the respondent is guilty of
assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who allows a non-
member of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice law
is guilty of violating Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which read as follows:

Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized

practice of law.

Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.

The term "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself

out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his services. Holding one's self out as a lawyer may be
shown by acts indicative of that purpose like identifying oneself as attorney,
appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a
partner of a law office for the general practice of law. 19 Such acts constitute
unauthorized practice of law.

In this case, Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., is not a lawyer, but he holds himself
out as one. His wife, the respondent herein, abetted and aided him in the
unauthorized practice of the legal profession.

At the hearing, the respondent admitted that the letterhead of Cristal-

Tenorio Law Office listed Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., Gerardo A. Panghulan,
and Maricris D. Battung as senior partners. She admitted that the first two
are not lawyers but paralegals. They are listed in the letterhead of her law
office as senior partners because they have investments in her law office. 20 
That is a blatant misrepresentation.

The Sagip Communication Radio Group identification card is another proof

that the respondent assisted Felicisimo R. Tenorio, Jr., in misrepresenting
to the public that he is a lawyer. Notably, the identification card stating that
he is "Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr.," bears the signature of the respondent
as Chairperson of the Group.

The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public
policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he
 SECOND DIVISION submit any report from the NBI despite the lapse of four months from the
time he reserved his right to submit the report.

[A.C. No. 7269. November 23, 2011.] The IBP-CBD recommended Busmente's suspension from the
practice of law for not less than five years. On 26 May 2006, in its
Resolution No. XVII-2006-271, 3 the IBP Board of Governors adopted
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, complainant, vs. ATTY. and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with modification by
YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, respondent. reducing the period of Busmente's suspension to six months. DaESIC
Busmente filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted a
report 4 from the NBI stating that the signature in the Answer, when
compared with standard/sample signatures submitted to its office,
DECISION showed that they were not written by one and the same person. In its 14
May 2011 Resolution No. XIX-2011-168, the IBP Board of Governors
denied Busmente's motion for reconsideration.
The Issue
CARPIO, J p:
The issue in this case is whether Busmente is guilty of directly
or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that
The Case warrants his suspension from the practice of law.
Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. The Ruling of this Court
Edita Noe-Lacsamana (Noe-Lacsamana) against Atty. Yolando
F. Busmente (Busmente) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines We agree with the IBP.
(IBP).
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:
The Antecedent Facts
Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the unauthorized practice of law.
counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. SCA-2481 before
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, while Busmente was The Court ruled that the term "practice of law" implies
the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso). Noe- customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
Lacsamana alleged that Ulaso's deed of sale over the property subject of compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his
Civil Case No. SCA-2481 was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an services. 5 The Court further ruled that holding one's self out as a lawyer
ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), San Juan, may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying
docketed as Civil Case No. 9284, where Busmente appeared as counsel. oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or
Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of
where Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged law. 6
that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa)
would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente's The Court explained:
collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not
proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times from 25 November 2003 to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on
to 8 February 2005. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the
and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmente's collaborating practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court qualified in education and character. The permissive right
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege
was not a lawyer. IDTSaC subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence
Rosa's employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon
Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmente's former secretary. Busmente alleged a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons
that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and that his and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his
signature in the Answer 1 presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to
forged. make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any
agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a
The Decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 7 ESCacI
In its Report and Recommendation, 2 the IBP Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer and that In this case, it has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not
she represented Ulaso as Busmente's collaborating counsel in Civil Case a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmente's
No. 9284. The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente claimed that Dela collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The only question is
Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there was no proof of her whether Busmente indirectly or directly assisted Dela Rosa in her illegal
separation from employment. The IBP-CBD found that notices from the practice of law.
MTC San Juan, as well as the pleadings of the case, were all sent
to Busmente's designated office address. The IBP-CBD stated Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa's employment in his office
that Busmente's only excuse was that Dela Rosa connived with his ended in 2000 and that Dela Rosa was able to continue with her illegal
former secretary Macasieb so that the notices and pleadings would not practice of law through connivance with Macasieb, another member
reach him. of Busmente's staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD, Busmente claimed
that Macasieb resigned from his office in 2003. Yet, Dela Rosa continued
The IBP-CBD rejected the affidavit submitted by Judy M. to represent Ulaso until 2005. Pleadings and court notices were still sent
Ortalez (Ortalez), Busmente's staff, alleging Macasieb's failure to to Busmente's office until 2005. The IBP-CBD noted that Dela Rosa's
endorse pleadings and notices of Civil Case No. 9284 to Busmente. The practice should have ended in 2003 when Macasieb left.
IBP-CBD noted that Ortalez did not exactly refer to Ulaso's case in her
affidavit and that there was no mention that she actually witnessed We agree. Busmente's office continued to receive all the
Macasieb withholding pleadings and notices from Busmente. The IBP- notices of Civil Case No. 9284. The 7 December 2004 Order 8 of Judge
CBD also noted that Macasieb was still working at Busmente's office in Elvira DC. Panganiban (Judge Panganiban) in Civil Case No. 9284
November 2003 as shown by the affidavit attached to a Motion to Lift showed that Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa was still representing Ulaso in the
Order of Default that she signed. However, even if Macasieb resigned in case. In that Order, Judge Panganiban set the preliminary conference of
November 2003, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005, Civil Case No. 9284 on 8 February 2005. It would have been impossible
which belied Busmente's allegation that Dela Rosa was able to illegally for Dela Rosa to continue representing Ulaso in the case,
practice law using his office address without his knowledge and only due considering Busmente's claim that Macasieb already resigned, if Dela
to Dela Rosa's connivance with Macasieb. As regards Busmente's Rosa had no access to the files in Busmente's office.
allegation that his signature on the Answer was forged, the IBP-CBD
gave Busmente the opportunity to coordinate with the National Bureau of Busmente, in his motion for reconsideration of Resolution No.
Investigation (NBI) to prove that his signature was forged but he failed to XVII-2006-271, submitted a copy of the NBI report stating that the
signature on the Answer submitted in Civil Case No. 9284 and the
specimen signatures submitted by Busmente were not written by one and Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Busmente's
the same person. The report shows that Busmente only submitted to the personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let a copy of this
NBI the questioned signature in the Answer. The IBP-CBD report, Decision be also furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
however, showed that there were other documents signed by Busmente, Philippines and to all courts in the land.
including the Pre-Trial Brief dated 14 November 2003 and Motion to Lift
Order of Default dated 22 November 2003. Noe-Lacsamana also SO ORDERED.
submitted a letter dated 14 August 2003 addressed to her as well as
Brion, Perez, Sereno and Reyes, JJ., concur.
three letters dated 29 August 2003 addressed to the occupants of the
disputed property, all signed by Busmente. Busmente failed to impugn
his signatures in these other documents. ||| (Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente, A.C. No. 7269, [November 23, 2011],
677 PHIL 1-9)
Finally, Busmente claimed that he was totally unaware of Civil
Case No. 9284 and he only came to know about the case when Ulaso
went to his office to inquire about its status. Busmente's allegation
contradicted the Joint Counter-Affidavit 9 submitted by Ulaso and Eddie
B. Bides stating that: cEAHSC
a. That our legal counsel is Atty. YOLANDO
F. BUSMENTE of the YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE AND
ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES with address at suite 718 BPI
Office Cond. Plaza Cervantes, Binondo Manila.

b. That ELIZABETH DELA ROSA is not our legal

counsel in the case which have been filed by IRENE BIDES
and LILIA VALERA in representation of her sister AMELIA
BIDES for Ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 9284 before
Branch 58 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Metro
Manila.

c. That we never stated in any of the pleadings filed

in the cases mentioned in the Complaint-Affidavit that
ELIZABETH DELA ROSA was our lawyer;

d. That if ever ELIZABETH DELA ROSA had affixed

her signature in the notices or other court records as our legal
counsel the same could not be taken against us for, we
believed in good faith that she was a lawyer; and we are made
to believe that it was so since had referred her to us (sic), she
was handling some cases of Hortaleza and client of Atty.
Yolando F. Busmente;  

e. That we know for the fact that ELIZABETH DELA

ROSA did not sign any pleading which she filed in court in
connection with our cases at all of those were signed by Atty.
YOLANDO BUSMENTE as our legal counsel; she just
accompanied us to the court rooms and/or hearings;

f. That we cannot be made liable for violation of

Article 171 (for and in relation to Article 172 of the Revised
Penal Code) for the reason that the following elements of the
offense are not present, to wit:

1. That offender has a legal obligation to disclose the

truth of the facts narrated;

2. There must be wrongful intent to injure a 3rd party;

3. Knowledge that the facts narrated by him are

absolutely false; SIDTCa

4. That the offender makes in a document untruthful

statements in the narration of facts.

And furthermore the untruthful narrations of facts

must affect the integrity which is not so in the instant case.

g. That from the start of our acquaintance with

ELIZABETH DELA ROSA we never ask her whether she was a
real lawyer and allowed to practice law in the Philippines; it
would have been unethical and shameful on our part to ask her
qualification; we just presumed that she has legal
qualifications to represent us in our cases because Atty.
YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE allowed her to accompany us
and attend our hearings in short, she gave us paralegal
assistance[.] (Emphasis supplied)

The counter-affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the

legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to
give legal assistance to Ulaso.
Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there
was sufficient evidence to prove that Busmente was guilty of violation of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We agree with the
recommendation of the IBP, modifying the recommendation of the IBP-
CBD, that Busmente should be suspended from the practice of law for six
months.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Yolando F. Busmente from
the practice of law for SIX MONTHS.
 SECOND DIVISION The administrative case for dishonesty (OMB-V-A-05-0219-E)
was also dismissed for lack of substantial evidence in a Decision dated 19
September 2005.
[A.C. No. 9604. March 20, 2013.]
On 29 November 2005, Tapay and Rustia filed with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) a complaint 5 to disbar Atty. Bancolo and Atty.
RODRIGO E. TAPAY and ANTHONY J. Jarder, Atty. Bancolo's law partner. The complainants alleged that they
RUSTIA, complainants, vs. ATTY. CHARLIE were subjected to a harassment Complaint filed before the Office of the
L. BANCOLO and ATTY. JANUS T. JARDER, respondents. Ombudsman with the forged signature of Atty. Bancolo. Complainants
stated further that the signature of Atty. Bancolo in the Complaint was not
the only one that was forged. Complainants attached a Report 6 dated 1
July 2005 by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory 6 which
examined three other letter-complaints signed by Atty. Bancolo for other
DECISION clients, allegedly close friends of Atty. Jarder. The report concluded that the
questioned signatures in the letter-complaints and the submitted standard
signatures of Atty. Bancolo were not written by one and the same person.
Thus, complainants maintained that not only were respondents engaging in
CARPIO, J p: unprofessional and unethical practices, they were also involved in
falsification of documents used to harass and persecute innocent people.
The Case
On 9 January 2006, complainants filed a Supplement to the
This administrative case arose from a Complaint filed by Rodrigo Disbarment Complaint Due to Additional Information. They alleged that a
E. Tapay (Tapay) and Anthony J. Rustia (Rustia), both employees of the certain Mary Jane Gentugao, the secretary of the Jarder Bancolo Law
Sugar Regulatory Administration, against Atty. Charlie Office, forged the signature of Atty. Bancolo.
L. Bancolo (Atty. Bancolo) and Atty. Janus T. Jarder (Atty Jarder) for
violation of the Canons of Ethics and Professionalism, Falsification of Public In their Answer dated 26 January 2006 to the disbarment
Document, Gross Dishonesty, and Harassment. HICATc complaint, respondents admitted that the criminal and administrative cases
filed by Divinagracia against complainants before the Office of the
The Facts Ombudsman were accepted by the Jarder Bancolo Law Office. The cases
were assigned to Atty. Bancolo. Atty. Bancolo alleged that after being
Sometime in October 2004, Tapay and Rustia received an Order informed of the assignment of the cases, he ordered his staff to prepare and
dated 14 October 2004 from the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas draft all the necessary pleadings and documents. However, due to some
requiring them to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint for usurpation of minor lapses, Atty. Bancolo permitted that the pleadings and
authority, falsification of public document, and graft and corrupt practices communications be signed in his name by the secretary of the law office.
filed against them by Nehimias Divinagracia, Jr. (Divinagracia), a co- Respondents added that complainants filed the disbarment complaint to
employee in the Sugar Regulatory Administration. The Complaint 1 dated retaliate against them since the cases filed before the Office of the
31 August 2004 was allegedly signed on behalf of Divinagracia by one Atty. Ombudsman were meritorious and strongly supported by testimonial and
Charlie L. Bancolo of the Jarder Bancolo Law Office based in Bacolod City, documentary evidence. Respondents also denied that Mary Jane Gentugao
Negros Occidental. was employed as secretary of their law office.
When Atty. Bancolo and Rustia accidentally chanced upon each Tapay and Rustia filed a Reply to the Answer dated 2 March
other, the latter informed Atty. Bancolo of the case filed against them before 2006. Thereafter, the parties were directed by the Commission on Bar
the Office of the Ombudsman. Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Discipline to attend a mandatory conference scheduled on 5 May 2006. The
Divinagracia since he had yet to meet Divinagracia in person. When Rustia conference was reset to 10 August 2006. On the said date, complainants
showed him the Complaint, Atty. Bancolo declared that the signature were present but respondents failed to appear. The conference was reset to
appearing above his name as counsel for Divinagracia was not his. Thus, 25 September 2006 for the last time. Again, respondents failed to appear
Rustia convinced Atty. Bancolo to sign an affidavit to attest to such fact. On despite receiving notice of the conference. Complainants manifested that
9 December 2004, Atty. Bancolo signed an affidavit denying his supposed they were submitting their disbarment complaint based on the documents
signature appearing on the Complaint filed with the Office of the submitted to the IBP. Respondents were also deemed to have waived their
Ombudsman and submitted six specimen signatures for comparison. Using right to participate in the mandatory conference. Further, both parties were
Atty. Bancolo's affidavit and other documentary evidence, Tapay and Rustia directed to submit their respective position papers. On 27 October 2006, the
filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia of falsifying the signature of IBP received complainants' position paper dated 18 October 2006 and
his alleged counsel, Atty. Bancolo. respondents' position paper dated 23 October 2006. AHDaET
In a Resolution dated 28 March 2005, the Office of the The IBP's Report and Recommendation
Ombudsman provisionally dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of
the counsel's signature posed a prejudicial question to the Complaint's On 11 April 2007, Atty. Lolita A. Quisumbing, the Investigating
validity. Also, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered that separate cases for Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, submitted
Falsification of Public Document 2 and Dishonesty 3 be filed against her Report. Atty. Quisumbing found that Atty. Bancolo violated Rule 9.01 of
Divinagracia, with Rustia and Atty. Bancolo as complainants. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility while Atty. Jarder
violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the same Code. The Investigating
Thereafter, Divinagracia filed his Counter-Affidavit dated 1 August Commissioner recommended that Atty. Bancolo be suspended for two
2005 denying that he falsified the signature of his former lawyer, years from the practice of law and Atty. Jarder be admonished for his failure
Atty. Bancolo. Divinagracia presented as evidence an affidavit dated 1 to exercise certain responsibilities in their law firm.
August 2005 by Richard A. Cordero, the legal assistant of Atty. Bancolo,
that the Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia's case and that In her Report and Recommendation, the Investigating
the Complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman was signed by the Commissioner opined:
office secretary per Atty. Bancolo's instructions. Divinagracia asked that the
Office of the Ombudsman dismiss the cases for falsification of public . . . . In his answer[,] respondent Atty. Charlie
document and dishonesty filed against him by Rustia and Atty. Bancolo and L. Bancolo admitted that his signature appearing in the
to revive the original Complaint for various offenses that he filed complaint filed against complainants' Rodrigo E. Tapay and
against Tapay and Rustia. Anthony J. Rustia with the Ombudsman were signed by the
secretary. He did not refute the findings that his signatures
In a Resolution dated 19 September 2005, the Office of the appearing in the various documents released from his office
Ombudsman dismissed the criminal case for falsification of public document were found not to be his. Such pattern of malpratice by
(OMB-V-C-05-0207-E) for insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion respondent clearly breached his obligation under Rule 9.01 of
states: IaDTES Canon 9, for a lawyer who allows a non-member to represent
him is guilty of violating the aforementioned Canon. The fact
WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby that respondent was busy cannot serve as an excuse for him
DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence, without prejudice to from signing personally. After all respondent is a member of a
the re-filing by Divinagracia, Jr. of a proper complaint for law firm composed of not just one (1) lawyer. The Supreme
violation of RA 3019 and other offenses against Rustia Court has ruled that this practice constitute negligence and
and Tapay. undersigned finds the act a sign of indolence and ineptitude.
Moreover, respondents ignored the notices sent by
SO ORDERED. 4 undersigned. That showed patent lack of respect to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippine[s'] Commission on Bar
 Discipline and its proceedings. It betrays lack of courtesy and qualified in education and character. The permissive right
irresponsibility as lawyers. conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege
subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
On the other hand, Atty. Janus T. Jarder, a senior moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the
partner of the law firm Jarder Bancolo and Associates Law public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence
Office, failed to exercise certain responsibilities over matters or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not
under the charge of his law firm. As a senior partner[,] he failed subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon
to abide to the principle of "command responsibility". . . . . a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons
and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his
xxx xxx xxx professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to
make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any
Respondent Atty. Janus Jarder after all is a
agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a
seasoned practitioner, having passed the bar in 1995 and
misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a
practicing law up to the present. He holds himself out to the
layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
public as a law firm designated as Jarder Bancolo and
Associates Law Office. It behooves Atty. Janus T. Jarder to In Republic v. Kenrick Development Corporation, 10 we held that
exert ordinary diligence to find out what is going on in his law the preparation and signing of a pleading constitute legal work involving the
firm, to ensure that all lawyers in his firm act in conformity to practice of law which is reserved exclusively for members of the legal
the Code of Professional Responsibility. As a partner[,] it is his profession. Atty. Bancolo's authority and duty to sign a pleading are
responsibility to provide efficacious control of court pleadings personal to him. Although he may delegate the signing of a pleading to
and other documents that carry the name of the law firm. Had another lawyer, he may not delegate it to a non-lawyer. Further, under
he done that, he could have known the unethical practice of his the Rules of Court, counsel's signature serves as a certification that (1) he
law partner Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo. Respondent Atty. Janus T. has read the pleading; (2) to the best of his knowledge, information and
Jarder failed to perform this task and is administratively liable belief there is good ground to support it; and (3) it is not interposed for
under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional delay. 11 Thus, by affixing one's signature to a pleading, it is counsel alone
Responsibility. 7 who has the responsibility to certify to these matters and give legal effect to
the document.
On 19 September 2007, in Resolution No. XVIII-2007-97, the
Board of Governors of the IBP approved with modification the Report and In his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December 2007,
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The Resolution Atty. Bancolo wants us to believe that he was a victim of circumstances or
states: of manipulated events because of his unconditional trust and confidence in
his former law partner, Atty. Jarder. However, Atty. Bancolo did not take any
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is
steps to rectify the situation, save for the affidavit he gave to Rustia denying
hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the
his signature to the Complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Atty. Bancolo had an opportunity to maintain his innocence when he filed
Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of
with the IBP his Joint Answer (with Atty. Jarder) dated 26 January 2006.
this Resolution as Annex "A"; and, finding the recommendation
Atty. Bancolo, however, admitted that prior to the preparation of the Joint
fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
Answer, Atty. Jarder threatened to file a disbarment case against him if he
laws and rules, and considering Respondent Atty. Bancolo's
did not cooperate. Thus, he was constrained to allow Atty. Jarder to prepare
violation of Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
the Joint Answer. Atty. Bancolo simply signed the verification without seeing
Responsibility, Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo is
the contents of the Joint Answer.
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1)
year. HAEDCT In the Answer, Atty. Bancolo categorically stated that because of
some minor lapses, the communications and pleadings filed
However, with regard to the charge against Atty.
against Tapay and Rustia were signed by his secretary, albeit with his
Janus T. Jarder, the Board of Governors RESOLVED as it is
tolerance. Undoubtedly, Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional
hereby RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED the
Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, and
pleading. This violation is an act of falsehood which is a ground for
APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the case for lack of merit. 8
disciplinary action.
Tapay and Rustia filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Likewise, The complainants did not present any evidence that Atty. Jarder
Atty. Bancolo filed his Motion for Reconsideration dated 22 December 2007. was directly involved, had knowledge of, or even participated in the
Thereafter, Atty. Jarder filed his separate Consolidated Comment/Reply to wrongful practice of Atty. Bancolo in allowing or tolerating his secretary to
Complainants' Motion for Reconsideration and Comment Filed by sign pleadings for him. Thus, we agree with the finding of the IBP Board
Complainants dated 29 January 2008. that Atty. Jarder is not administratively liable. AHSaTI
In Resolution No. XX-2012-175 dated 9 June 2012, the IBP In sum, we find that the suspension of Atty. Bancolo from the
Board of Governors denied both complainants' and Atty. Bancolo's motions practice of law for one year is warranted. We also find proper the dismissal
for reconsideration. The IBP Board found no cogent reason to reverse the of the case against Atty. Jarder.
findings of the Investigating Commissioner and affirmed Resolution No.
XVIII-2007-97 dated 19 September 2007. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Janus T.
Jarder for lack of merit.
The Court's Ruling
We find respondent Atty. Charlie L. Bancolo administratively
After a careful review of the records of the case, we agree with
liable for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board and find reasonable
Responsibility. He is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one
grounds to hold respondent Atty. Bancolo administratively liable.
year effective upon finality of this Decision. He is warned that a repetition of
Atty. Bancolo admitted that the Complaint he filed for a former the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
client before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent Atty.
secretary of his law office. Clearly, this is a violation of Rule 9.01 of Canon 9
Charlie L. Bancolo's record in this Court as attorney. Further, let copies of
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
this Decision be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
CANON 9 Office of the Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all
the courts in the country for their information and guidance.
A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW. SO ORDERED.

Rule 9.01 — A lawyer shall not delegate to any Brion, Del Castillo, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
unqualified person the performance of any task which by law
may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good  
standing.
||| (Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, [March 20, 2013], 707 PHIL 1-10)
This rule was clearly explained in the case of Cambaliza v.
Cristal-Tenorio, 9 where we held: AacDHE

The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not

to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on
public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the
practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
 THIRD DIVISION Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned
his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four
children notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his moral fitness
[A.C. No. 6116. August 1, 2012.] to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The settled rule is
that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside
marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate
ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, complainant, vs. ATTY. disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the
MARIANO R. PEFIANCO, respondent. Constitution and affirmed by our laws. 13 Consequently, We find no reason
to disturb the IBP's finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's
Oath 14 and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer
from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
RESOLUTION However, We find the charge of engaging in illegal money lending not to
have been sufficiently established. A "business" requires some form of
investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can be
sold at profit on a consistent basis. 15 The lending of money to a single
PERLAS-BERNABE, J p: person without showing that such service is made available to other
persons on a consistent basis cannot be construed as indicia that
Before the Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by respondent is engaged in the business of lending. THCSAE
complainant Engr. Gilbert Tumbokon against respondent Atty. Mariano
Nonetheless, while We rule that respondent should be sanctioned for his
R. Pefianco for grave dishonesty, gross misconduct constituting deceit and
actions, We are minded that the power to disbar should be exercised with
grossly immoral conduct.
great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
In his Complaint, 1 complainant narrated that respondent undertook to give standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as
him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%, of the attorney's fees the latter member of the bar, 16 or the misconduct borders on the criminal, or
would receive in representing Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. committed under scandalous circumstance, 17 which do not obtain here.
Yap), whom he referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late Considering the circumstances of the case, We deem it appropriate that
Benjamin Yap (Civil Case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial Court of respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
Aklan). Their agreement was reflected in a letter 2 dated August 11, 1995. year as recommended.
However, respondent failed to pay him the agreed commission
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO is
notwithstanding receipt of attorney's fees amounting to 17% of the total
found GUILTY of violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
estate or about P40 million. Instead, he was informed through a
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the
letter 3 dated July 16, 1997 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay the same after
same Code and SUSPENDED from the active practice of law for ONE (1)
respondent had agreed to reduce his attorney's fees from 25% to 17%. He
YEAR effective upon notice hereof.
then demanded the payment of his commission 4 which respondent
ignored. aDHScI Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of
respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar and furnished the Office of
Complainant further alleged that respondent has not lived up to the high
the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the
moral standards required of his profession for having abandoned his legal
Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
wife, Milagros Hilado, with whom he has two children, and cohabited with
Mae Flor Galido, with whom he has four children. He also accused SO ORDERED.
respondent of engaging in money-lending business 5 without the required
authorization from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin * and Abad, JJ., concur.
In his defense, respondent explained that he accepted Sps. Yap's case on
a 25% contingent fee basis, and advanced all the expenses. He disputed ||| (Tumbokon v. Pefianco, A.C. No. 6116 (Resolution), [August 1, 2012],
the August 11, 1995 letter for being a forgery and claimed that Sps. Yap 692 PHIL 202-209)
assumed to pay complainant's commission which he clarified in his July 16,
1997 letter. He, thus, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and for the
corresponding sanction against complainant's counsel, Atty. Florencio B.
Gonzales, for filing a baseless complaint. 6

In the Resolution 7 dated February 16, 2004, the Court resolved to refer this
administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. In his Report and
Recommendation 8 dated October 10, 2008, the Investigating IBP
Commissioner recommended that respondent be suspended for one (1)
year from the active practice of law, for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, Rule
1.01, Canon 1; Rule 7.03, Canon 7 and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code). The IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the same in its Resolution No. XIX-2010-453 9 dated August
28, 2010. Respondent moved for reconsideration 10 which was denied in
Resolution No. XIX-2011-141 dated October 28, 2011.

After due consideration, We adopt the findings and recommendation of the

IBP Board of Governors. DAEcIS

The practice of law is considered a privilege bestowed by the State on

those who show that they possess and continue to possess the legal
qualifications for the profession. As such, lawyers are expected to maintain
at all times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity
and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal
profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and
norms embodied in the Code. 11 Lawyers may, thus, be disciplined for any
conduct that is wanting of the above standards whether in their professional
or in their private capacity.

In the present case, respondent's defense that forgery had attended the
execution of the August 11, 1995 letter was belied by his July 16, 1997
letter admitting to have undertaken the payment of complainant's
commission but passing on the responsibility to Sps. Yap. Clearly,
respondent has violated Rule 9.02, 12 Canon 9 of the Code which prohibits
a lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal services with
persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases which do not
obtain in the case at bar.
 FIRST DIVISION As per Registry Return Card No. 957, 15 respondent received
the Court's order of suspension on October 16, 2014. 16 Records are
bereft of any showing that respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
[A.C. No. 10465. June 8, 2016.] and, thus, the Court's order of suspension against him became final and
executory.

SPOUSES LAMBERTO V. EUSTAQUIO AND GLORIA Events Following the Finality of Respondent's Suspension

J. EUSTAQUIO, complainants, vs. ATTY. EDGAR On September 7, 2015 and upon request from the Office of the
R. NAVALES, respondent. Court Administrator (OCA), a Certification 17 was issued by the MeTC of
Quezon City, Branch 38 (MeTC-Br. 38) stating that respondent has been
appearing before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor since September
2014 up to the present. In connection with this, the MeTC-Br. 38 wrote a
DECISION letter 18 dated September 8, 2015 to the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC), inquiring about the details of respondent's suspension from the
practice of law. In view of the foregoing, the OCA indorsed the matter to
the OBC for appropriate action. 19
PERLAS-BERNABE, J p: Despite due notice from the Court, 20 respondent failed to file
his comment to the aforementioned Certification issued by MeTC-Br. 38.
For the Court's resolution is a Complaint 1 dated January 16,
2010 filed by complainants spouses Lamberto V. Eustaquio and Gloria The OBC's Report and Recommendation
J. Eustaquio (complainants) against respondent Atty. Edgar
R. Navales (respondent), praying that respondent be meted the In a Report and Recommendation 21 dated February 10, 2016,
appropriate disciplinary sanction/s for failing to pay rent and to vacate the the OBC recommended that respondent be further suspended from the
apartment he is leasing despite demands. practice of law and from holding the position of Assistant City Prosecutor
for a period of six (6) months, thus, increasing his total suspension period
The Facts to one (1) year, effective immediately. 22 It found that since respondent
received the order of suspension against him on October 16, 2014 and
Complainants alleged that they are the owners of an apartment did not move for its reconsideration, such order attained finality after the
located at 4-D Cavite St., Barangay Paltok, SFDM, Quezon City, which lapse of 15 days therefrom. As such, he should have already served his
they leased to respondent under a Contract of Lease 2 dated April 16, suspension. In this relation, the OBC ratiocinated that since respondent
2005. However, respondent violated the terms and conditions of the
was holding a position which requires him to use and apply his
aforesaid contract when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the aggregate knowledge in legal matters and practice of law, i.e., Assistant City
amount of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite Prosecutor, he should have ceased and desisted from acting as such.
repeated oral and written demands. 3 This prompted complainants to However, as per the Certification dated September 7, 2015 of the MeTC-
refer the matter to barangay conciliation, where the parties agreed on an Br. 38, respondent never complied with his order of suspension. In view
amicable settlement, whereby respondent promised to pay complainants thereof, the OBC recommended to increase respondent's suspension
the amount of P131,000.00 on July 16, 2009 and to vacate the leased from the practice of law and from holding the position of Assistant City
premises on July 31, 2009. Respondent eventually reneged on his Prosecutor for an additional period of six (6) months. 23
obligations under the settlement agreement, constraining complainants to
file an ejectment case 4 against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court The Issue Before the Court
(MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 40 (MeTC-Br. 40), docketed as Civil
Case No. 09-39689. Further, complainants filed the instant case before The sole issue presented for the Court's resolution is whether
the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or not respondent should be held administratively liable.
(IBP), contending that respondent miserably failed to exemplify honesty, The Court's Ruling
integrity, and respect for the laws when he failed and refused to fulfil his
obligations to complainants. 5 After due consideration, the Court sustains the findings and
recommendation of the OBC and adopts the same in its entirety.
Despite notices, 6 respondent failed to file his Answer, to
appear in the mandatory conference, and to file his position paper. It is settled that the Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the practice of law. As such, when the Court orders a lawyer
Meanwhile, the MeTC-Br. 40 promulgated a Decision 7 dated suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all
December 8, 2009 in the ejectment case in favor of the complainants functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of
and, accordingly, ordered respondent to vacate the leased premises and suspension. This includes desisting from holding a position in
to pay complainants the following amounts: (a) P139,000.00 representing government requiring the authority to practice law. 24 The practice of law
unpaid rentals as of July 2009; (b) further rental payments of P8,000.00 embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
per month starting August 17, 2009 until the actual surrender of said law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It includes
premises to complainants; (c) attorney's fees in the amount of performing acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or
P20,000.00; and (d) cost of suit. 8 rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of
During the pendency of the case, respondent was appointed as legal knowledge or skill. 25
an Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City. 9 In the instant case, the OBC correctly pointed out that the
The IBP's Report and Recommendation Court's Resolution 26 dated September 15, 2014 suspending respondent
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months became final and
In a Report and Recommendation 10 dated February 8, 2011, executory fifteen (15) days after respondent received a copy of the same
the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively on October 16, 2014. Thus, respondent should have already commenced
liable and, accordingly, recommended that he be meted the penalty of serving his six (6)-month suspension. However, respondent never
suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a heeded the suspension order against him as he continued discharging
stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more his functions as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Quezon City, as
severely. 11 It was found that respondent displayed unwarranted evidenced by the Certification 27 issued by MeTC-Br. 38 stating that
obstinacy in evading payment of his debts, as highlighted by his respondent has been appearing before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor
numerous promises to pay which he eventually reneged on. In this light, since September 2014 up to the present.
the IBP Investigating Commissioner concluded that respondent violated
Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Section 9 of Republic Act No. (RA) 10071, 28 otherwise known
Responsibility (CPR) and, thus, should be held administratively liable. 12 as the "Prosecution Service Act of 2010," provides the powers and
functions of prosecutors, to wit:
In a Resolution 13 dated September 28, 2013, the IBP Board
of Governors adopted and approved the aforesaid report and Section 9. Powers and Functions of the Provincial
recommendation. Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution 14 dated Prosecutor or City Prosecutor. — The provincial prosecutor or
September 15, 2014 adopting and approving the findings of fact, the city prosecutor shall:
conclusions of law, and recommendations of the IBP and, accordingly, (a) Be the law officer of the province of the city
meted respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for officer, as the case may be;
a period of six (6) months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same shall be dealt with more severely. (b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all
charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of
penal laws and ordinances within their respective
 jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or
complaint prepared or made and filed against the
persons accused. In the conduct of such
investigations he/she or any of his/her assistants
shall receive the statements under oath or take oral
evidence of witnesses, and for this purpose may
by subpoena summon witnesses to appear and
testify under oath before him/her, and the attendance
or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may
be enforced by application to any trial court; and
(c) Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes,
misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal
ordinances in the courts at the province or city and
therein discharge all the duties incident to the
institution of criminal actions, subject to the
provisions of the second paragraph of Section 5
hereof.
Verily, a plain reading of the foregoing provision evidently
shows that the government office of Assistant City Prosecutor requires its
holder to be authorized to practice law. Hence, respondent's continuous
discharge of his functions as such constitutes practice of law and, thus, a
clear defiance of the Court's order of suspension against him.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful
disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court and wilfully
appearing as an attorney without authority to do so — acts which
respondent is guilty of in this case — are grounds for disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law, to wit:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys
by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney
by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any
lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed on respondent, the
Court, in Lingan v. Calubaquib, 29 Feliciano v. Bautista-
Lozada, 30 and Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, 31 consistently imposed
an additional six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law to erring
lawyers who practiced law despite being earlier suspended. Under the
foregoing circumstances, the Court deems it proper to mete the same
penalty to respondent in addition to the earlier six (6)-month suspension
already imposed on him, as recommended by the OBC. Thus,
respondent's total period of suspension from the practice of law — and
necessarily, from the holding the position of Assistant City Prosecutor as
well — should be fixed at one (1) year.
As a final note, it must be stressed that "[d]isbarment of
lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy
members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the nobility and honor of
the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to
discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings, it does so in
the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle.
The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to
impose a less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of
reforming the errant lawyer is possible." 32
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Edgar R. Navales is
found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional
period of six (6) months from his original six (6)-month suspension,
totalling one (1) year from service of this Decision, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant to be appended to respondent's personal record as a member
of the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the
Court Administrator, which is directed to circulate them to all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-de Castro, ** Bersamin and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Sereno, * C.J., is on leave.

||| (Spouses Eustaquio v. Navales, A.C. No. 10465, [June 8, 2016])

 EN BANC Armed with such documents, Atty. Era led the pulling out of the subject
properties but eventually stopped to negotiate with Bonifacio's children
for the payment of the judgment award instead of pulling out the
[A.C. No. 11754. October 3, 2017.] auctioned properties. Atty. Era summoned Bonifacio's children to
continue with the negotiation in his law office. On behalf of his clients,
their counter-offer for the satisfaction of the judgment award went from
JOAQUIN G. BONIFACIO, complainant, vs. ATTY. P6 Million to P9 Million. 11
EDGARDO O. ERA and ATTY. DIANE KAREN B.
BRAGAS, respondents. As the parties were not able to settle, on December 3, 2013,
Attys. Era and Bragas went back to Bonifacio's business establishment
together with their clients and several men, and forced open the
establishment to pull out the auctioned properties. This was evidenced by
the videos presented by Bonifacio in the instant administrative
DECISION complaint. 12
This prompted Bonifacio to file a criminal complaint for
malicious mischief, robbery, and trespassing with the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Pasay City. In its Resolution 13 dated March 31, 2014, the
TIJAM, J p: Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict
Attys. Era and Bragas for grave coercion. 14
This administrative case arose from a verified Affidavit-
Complaint 1 filed before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by Meanwhile, Atty. Era's name remains to appear in pleadings
complainant Joaquin G. Bonifacio (Bonifacio) against respondents Atty. filed before the NLRC and this Court sometime in February and April,
Edgardo O. Era (Atty. Era) and Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas (Atty. 2014 with regard to the subject labor case. 15
Bragas) for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). On August 8, 2014, Bonifacio filed the instant administrative
complaint. 16
In their Answer, 17 Attys. Era and Bragas alleged
The Facts
that Bonifacio has no personal knowledge as to what transpired on
November 28, 2013 and December 3, 2013 as the latter was not present
therein at that time. 18 Hence, his allegations of force, threat, and
Sometime in 2003, an illegal dismissal case was lodged
intimidation in the execution of the judgment is without basis. 19 In his
against Bonifacio and his company, Solid Engine Rebuilders Corporation
defense, Atty. Era further argued that he did not violate the Court's order
entitled Gil Abucejo, Edgar Besmano, Efren Sager, Darlito Sosa,
of suspension from the practice of law as he merely acted as his clients'
Gerardo G. Talosa, and Salvador Villanueva v. Solid Engine Rebuilders
attorney-in-fact pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney 20 (SPA) dated
Corporation and/or Joaquin G. Bonifacio, docketed as NLRC NCR Case
May 3, 2006. It is Atty. Era's theory that with such SPA, he was not
No. 00-05-05953-03. Complainants therein (Abucejo Group) were
engaged in the practice of law in representing his clients in the
represented by Era and Associates Law Office through Atty. Era. 2
implementation of the alias writ. He added that he never signed any
On June 15, 2004, the Labor Arbiter found Bonifacio and the document or pleading on behalf of his clients during his suspension. For
corporation liable for illegal dismissal and, consequently, ordered them to Atty. Bragas, being an associate of Era and Associates Law Firm, she
pay Abucejo Group their separation pay, full backwages and pro-rated was merely representing the Abucejo Group as said law firm's clients.
13th month pay. More specifically, Bonifacio and his corporation were Anent the Php6 Million to 9 Million counter-offer that they made,
ordered to pay a partially computed amount of P674,128 for the Attys. Era and Bragas explained that the parties were still on negotiation,
separation pay and full backwages, and P16,050.65 for the 13th month hence, both parties are free to have their own computations, which they
pay. 3 Bonifacio and the corporation brought their case up to the could respectively accept or otherwise. 21
Supreme Court but they suffered the same fate as their appeals and
In his Report and Recommendation 22 dated March 17, 2015,
motions were decided against them. 4
Investigating Commissioner Jose Villanueva Cabrera recommended the
Thus, on January 26, 2006, a Writ of Execution 5 was issued to dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for insufficiency of
implement the June 15, 2004 Decision. A Notice of Garnishment dated evidence.
February 6, 2006 was likewise issued. 6 Two alias writs dated May 8,
The Investigating Commissioner found nothing wrong with the
2008 7 and April 16, 2013 8 were later on issued, directing the sheriff to
indication of a suspended lawyer's name in a pleading considering that
collect the sum of P4,012,166.43, representing the judgment award plus
the same was not signed by the latter. There was also no proof that a
interest and attorney's fees.
pleading was prepared by Atty. Era. On the other hand, there was no
Meanwhile, an administrative complaint was filed against impediment against Atty. Bragas to sign the pleadings. There was also
Atty. Era for representing conflicting interests entitled Ferdinand A. no proof that in doing so, Atty. Bragas was assisting suspended
Samson v. Atty. Edgardo O. Era, docketed as A.C. No. 6664. 9 In a July Atty. Era in filing a pleading. Neither the presence of Atty. Era during the
16, 2013 Decision, this Court found Atty. Era guilty of the charge and public auction and the negotiations was an implication or proof that
imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, Atty. Era was engaging in the practice of law during his suspension.
the dispositive portion of which reads: According to the Investigating Commissioner, anybody, not exclusively
lawyers, can be present at an auction sale or negotiation.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and
PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating As to whether Attys. Era and Bragas violated any rules/laws in
Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of the implementation of the judgment by using force, threat, and
Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the intimidation, the Investigating Commissioner noted that complainant
practice of law for two years effective upon his receipt of this contradicted such imputations by filing the following pleadings, to wit: (1)
decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar a Motion to Close and Terminate Case 23 dated December 18, 2013,
offense will be dealt with more severely. acknowledging the full satisfaction of the judgment award and even
prayed for Attys. Era and Bragas' clients to take possession of the
Let copies of this decision be included in the remaining machines in his business establishment; (2) a
personal record of Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA and entered Manifestation 24 dated March 12, 2014, wherein complainant stated that
m [sic] his file in the Office of the Bar Confidant. he has surrendered the vehicles listed in the certificate of sale; (3) an
Omnibus Motion with Entry of Appearance Motion to Withdraw and
Let copies of this decision be disseminated to all
Motion to Reiterate Motion to Close and Terminate Case and release of
lower courts by the Office of the Court Administrator, as well as
TRO Bond 25 dated February 4, 2014; (4) A Motion for Consignation with
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its guidance.
Motion to Lift Levy 26 dated October 29, 2014; and (5) a Motion to
SO ORDERED. 10 Withdraw Complaint 27 dated December 10, 2013 on the criminal case
for Malicious Mischief, Robbery, and Trespassing against Attys. Era and
On November 28, 2013, the scheduled public auction Bragas. In fine, the Investigating Commissioner ratiocinated that in
over Bonifacio's and/or the corporation's properties in the business acknowledging the satisfaction of the judgment in the labor case and
establishment was conducted to implement the alias writ. withdrawing the criminal case that he filed against Attys. Era and Bragas
Atty. Era actively participated therein. He attended the public auction and with regard to the implementation of the said judgment, complainant
tendered a bid for his clients who were declared the highest bidders. On contradicted and demolished his own allegation that the satisfaction of
the same day, a certificate of sale was issued, which Atty. Era presented the judgment was improperly and unlawfully implemented. 28
to the corporation's officers and employees who were there at that time.
 Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended that the all actions taken for them in matters connected with
administrative charges against Attys. Era and Bragas be dismissed for the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law
insufficiency of evidence. 29 by maintaining an office where he is held out to be
an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as
The IBP Board of Governors (Board), in its Resolution No. XXI- an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters,
2015-270 30 dated April 18, 2015 reversed and set aside the negotiating with opposing counsel about pending
Investigating Commissioner's findings and conclusions: litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services
RESOLUTION No. XXI-2015-270 rendered by his associate." (Black's Law Dictionary,
CBD Case No. 14-4300 3rd ed.)
Joaquin G. Bonifacio vs. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
Atty. Edgardo O. Era and of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v.
Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A person is also
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby considered to be in the practice of law when he:
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, the Report and "x x x for valuable consideration engages in the
Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the business of advising person, firms, associations or
above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as corporations as to their rights under the law, or
Annex "A", and considering Atty. Era's continued engagement appears in a representative capacity as an advocate
in the practice of law during the period of his suspension by in proceedings pending or prospective, before any
admittedly participating in the negotiation for the payment of court, commissioner, referee, board, body,
money judgment including pegging of interest he acted as his committee, or commission constituted by law or
clients advocate instead as an agent in view of the presence authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
also of his client in the negotiation, for holding office and representative capacity performs any act or acts for
admittedly summoned the complainant's children to determine the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of
the money judgment. Hence, Atty. Edgardo O. Era is their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
years. business of advising clients as to their rights
RESOLVED FURTHER, for her assistance in the under the law, or while so engaged performs any
unauthorized practice of law of Atty. Edgardo O. Era, Atty. act or acts either in court or outside of court for
Diane Karen B. Bragas is hereby SUSPENDED from the that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law."
practice of law for one (1) month. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v. C.S. Dudley and Co., 102
S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852).
In its Extended Resolution 31 dated October 17, 2016, the IBP
Board of Governors found Atty. Era's argument that he merely acted This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers
pursuant to an SPA given to him untenable. The Board explained that the Association v. Agrava, (105 Phil. 173, 176-177) stated:
invoked SPA gave Atty. Era the authority to appear and represent the "The practice of law is not limited to the
Abucejo Group only on the May 4, 2006 auction and did not include the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
November 28, 2013 auction. Also, while he was authorized to receive the preparation of pleadings and other papers
payment on behalf of his clients, the SPA specifically stated that said incident to actions and special proceedings, the
payments should be made in the form of checks and not machinery or management of such actions and proceedings on
property. Thus, Atty. Era had no authority under the SPA to represent his behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
clients during the November 28, 2013 auction and to pull out and receive addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients,
the corporation's machines as payment of the judgment award. At any and all action taken for them in matters connected
rate, according to the Board, Atty. Era's clients relied on his legal with the law incorporation services, assessment and
knowledge in having the judgment award satisfied. Clearly, condemnation services contemplating an
Atty. Era violated Section 28, 32 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. 33 appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of
Corollary to this, the Board also found Atty. Bragas liable for a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in
allowing and assisting Atty. Era to engage in an unauthorized practice of bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings,
law. The Board concluded that Atty. Bragas ought to know that Atty. Era's and conducting proceedings in attachment, and
acts during the satisfaction of the alias writ could be performed only by a in matters of estate and guardianship have been
member of the bar in good standing. 34 held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation
and drafting of legal instruments, where the work
Pursuant to Section 12 (b), 35 Rule 139-B of the Rules, the done involves the determination by the trained
records of the instant case were transmitted to this Court. legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions." (5 Am. Jur. pp. 262, 263).
No motion for reconsideration or petition for review was filed by xxx xxx xxx
either party as of June 29, 2017.
The University of the Philippines Law Center in
Necessarily, the Court will now proceed to give its final action conducting orientation briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975)
on the instant administrative case, the issues being: (1) Did listed the dimensions of the practice of law in even broader
Atty. Era engage in the practice of law during his suspension therefrom terms as advocacy, counselling and public service.
that would warrant another disciplinary action against him?; and (2) In the
affirmative, is Atty. Bragas guilty of directly or indirectly assisting "One may be a practicing attorney in
Atty. Era in his illegal practice of law that would likewise warrant this following any line of employment in the profession. If
Court's exercise of its disciplining authority against her? what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of
a kind usual for attorneys engaging in the active
We sustain the findings and recommendations of the Board of practice of their profession, and he follows some one
Governors. or more lines of employment such as this he is a
Atty. Era's acts constituted practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the
"practice of law." statute." (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312)
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
On this matter, Our pronouncement in the landmark case court, which requires the application of law, legal
of Renato L. Cayetano v. Christian Monsod, et al. 36 is on point. Thus, procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To
We quote herein the relevant portions of the said Decision, viz.: engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to
Black defines "practice of law" as: practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service,
"The rendition of services requiring the which device or service requires the use in any degree of
knowledge and the application of legal principles legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23) 37 (Emphasis
and technique to serve the interest of another supplied)
with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in In Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana v. Atty. Yolando F.
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of Bustamante, 38 We succinctly ruled that the term practice of law implies
litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for
and other papers incident to actions and special compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of services.
proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal Holding one's self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal purpose, such as identifying oneself as an attorney, appearing in court in
advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and
representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law As correctly observed by the Board, Atty. Bragas ought to
office for the general practice of law. 39 know that Atty. Era's acts constitutive of law practice could be performed
only by a member of the Bar in good standing, which Atty. Era was not at
In this case, it is undisputed that Atty. Era committed the that time. Hence, she should have not participated to such transgression.
following acts: (1) appeared on behalf of his winning clients in the public
auction of the condemned properties; (2) tendered bid in the auction for Being an associate in Atty. Era's law firm cannot be used to
his clients; (3) secured the certificate of sale and presented the said circumvent the suspension order. The factual circumstances of the case
document to the corporation's officers and employees present in the clearly shows that Atty. Bragas did not act to replace Atty. Era as counsel
premises at that time; (4) insisted that his clients are now the new owners for his and/or the law firm's clients during the latter's suspension. Atty.
of the subject properties, hence, should be allowed entry in the premises; Bragas merely assisted Atty. Era, who admittedly was the one actively
(5) initiated the pull out of the properties; and (6) negotiated performing all acts pertaining to the labor case he was handling.
with Bonifacio's children in his law office as regards the payment of the
judgment award with interest instead of pulling out the properties. 40 Considering the foregoing, We also adopt the Board's
recommendation as regards Atty. Bragas' guilt in the violation of
It is true that being present in an auction sale and negotiating the CPR.
matters relating to the same may not be exclusively for lawyers, as
opined by the Investigating Commissioner. However, in this case, as WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Edgardo O. Era is
aptly put by the Board in its Resolution, Atty. Era's acts clearly involved found GUILTY of willfully disobeying this Court's lawful order and is
the determination by a trained legal mind of the legal effects and hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3)
consequences of each course of action in the satisfaction of the judgment years, while Atty. Diane Karen B. Bragas is likewise found GUILTY of
award. 41 Precisely, this is why his clients chose Atty. Era to represent violating CANON 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is
them in the public auction and in any negotiation/settlement with the hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) month, effective
corporation arising from the labor case as stated in the SPA being immediately from receipt of this Decision. Also, both Attys. Era and
invoked by Atty. Era. 42 Such trained legal mind is what his clients were Bragas are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense, or a
relying upon in seeking redress for their claims. This is evident from the commission of another offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
fact that they agreed not to enter into any amicable settlement without the Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the personal records
prior written consent of Atty. Era, the latter being their lawyer. 43 It could of respondents as members of the Bar, and copies furnished the Office of
readily be seen that the said SPA was executed by reason of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of
Atty. Era being their legal counsel. Thus, We are one with the Board's the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
submission that the said SPA cannot be invoked to support Atty. Era's
claim that he was not engaged in the practice of law in performing the SO ORDERED.
acts above-cited as such SPA cunningly undermines the suspension
ordered by this Court against Atty. Era, which We cannot countenance. Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro,
Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza,
Atty. Era was engaged in an Caguioa, Martires, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
unauthorized practice of law during
his suspension
||| (Bonifacio v. Era, A.C. No. 11754, [October 3, 2017], 819 PHIL 170-185)

As mentioned, Atty. Era was suspended from the practice of

law for a period of two years in this Court's Decision dated July 16, 2013.
He performed the above-cited acts on the same year, specifically
November to December 2013. Indubitably, Atty. Era was engaged in an
unauthorized law practice.
Atty. Era's acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful
order of this Court, which under Section 27, 44 Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court is a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Further,
Atty. Era's intentional maneuver to circumvent the suspension order not
only reflects his insubordination to authority but also his disrespect to this
Court's lawful order which warrants reproach. Members of the bar, above
anyone else, are called upon to obey court orders and
processes. 45 Graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any
other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their
processes. 46
This case is not novel. We had previously disciplined erring
lawyers who continue in their practice despite being suspended by the
Court. In Rodrigo A. Molina v. Atty. Ceferino R. Magat, 47 this Court
suspended Atty. Magat from the practice of law for practicing his
profession despite this Court's previous order of suspension. Likewise in
another case, We suspended a lawyer for continuing in her practice
despite the clear language of this Court's suspension order. 48
In view of the foregoing, We agree with the Board of
Governors' Resolution, finding Atty. Era guilty of willfully disobeying the
lawful order of this Court warranting the exercise of Our disciplining
authority. We also adopt the Board's recommendation as to the penalty
to be imposed upon Atty. Era, i.e., three years suspension from the
practice of law, taking into account that this is his second infraction.
Atty. Bragas is guilty of assisting Atty.
Era in his unauthorized practice of
law and, thus, must likewise be
reproved.

There is no question that Atty. Bragas has knowledge of

Atty. Era's suspension from the practice of law and yet, she allowed
herself to participate in Atty. Era's unauthorized practice. Clearly, Atty.
Bragas violated the CPR, specifically:
CANON 9 — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,
assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Indeed, it is a lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law. Such duty is founded upon public
interest and policy, which requires that law practice be limited only to
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. 49
 FIRST DIVISION time, his father could hardly move and could not talk. He submitted
pictures of his father and a medical certificate.

[A.C. No. 10267. June 18, 2018.] Helen, however, asserted that the proceedings could not be
indefinitely suspended considering that respondent lawyer could very well
hire his own counsel. 12
HELEN GRADIOLA, * complainant, vs. ATTY. ROMULO John then filed a Supplemental Manifestation 13 informing the
A. DELES, respondent. IBP that his father was "in a vegetative state" and committing to update
the IBP of his father's medical condition.
The Investigating Commissioner, however, denied John's
request and directed respondent lawyer to file his Answer. 14
DECISION
Atty. Carlito V. Mampang Jr. (Atty. Mampang) tendered the
required Answer 15 to the administrative complaint, which was signed by
John, and not by respondent lawyer. Atty. Mampang qualified in the
DEL CASTILLO, J p: Answer that it was his friend John who secured his services pro bono.
The counsel averred, that as of the date of filing the Answer, respondent
lawyer, dependent on his children's help, could not communicate to
This is a Complaint 1 for disbarment filed by explain his side as he remained in a vegetative state, unable to speak,
Helen Gradiola (Helen), charging respondent lawyer Atty. Romulo and had lost his motor skills.
A. Deles (respondent lawyer) with violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility, specifically Rule 9.01 and Rule 9.02 of Canon 9; and Rule Notably, the Answer filed on respondent lawyer's behalf relied
10.01 and Rule 10.02 of Canon 10 thereof. 2 chiefly on (a) "Atty. Araneta's" counter-affidavit 16 dated August 21, 2008
which the latter submitted to the City Prosecutor of Bacolod City; and (b)
Helen claimed that respondent lawyer was her counsel in a "Atty. Araneta's" letter 17 addressed to Helen's counsel dated June 4,
civil case then pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as 2008.
CA-G.R. CV No. 63354. 3 Helen asserted that respondent lawyer abetted
the unauthorized practice of law when he assigned or delegated his The Answer further painted respondent lawyer as a victim too
professional duties as her lawyer to "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" ("Atty. of the chicanery perpetrated by "Atty. Araneta," and that respondent
Araneta"). Helen alleged that instead of attending full time to her case, lawyer was not Helen's counsel of record; that although respondent
respondent lawyer allowed "Atty. Araneta" to do the legal research works lawyer's name appeared in the fictitious pleadings, the signatures
and the preparation of various pleadings relative to the civil case. appearing thereon were not by respondent lawyer. To substantiate this
claim, Atty. Mampang submitted for comparison machine or xerox copies
Moreover, Helen averred that she was assured the case was in of respondent lawyer's alleged pleadings 18 in some cases whereon he
"good hands" because respondent lawyer and "Atty. Araneta" have a signed as counsel of record.
"contact" in the CA in Cebu City. Helen narrated that she was told that
the CA in Cebu City had reconsidered its April 28, 2005 Decision, as she Report and Recommendation 19 of the Investigating Commissioner and
was shown a photocopy of a November 13, 2006 Resolution 4 of the CA the Board of Governors
in Cebu City which, this time, declared her and her spouse as the owners
of the four lots subject-matter of the said CA-G.R. CV No. 63354. Helen On February 23, 2010, the Investigating Commissioner, Oliver
added that respondent lawyer nonetheless cautioned that their A. Cachapero, recommended respondent lawyer's suspension from the
adversaries in the case had appealed to the Supreme Court, hence they practice of law for one year for violating Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule
had to prepare their own "position paper" 5 to support the appeal before 10.1 and Rule 10.2 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional
this Court. And, that naturally, this would inevitably entail monetary Responsibility.
expenses. Rejecting the defense that respondent lawyer was in no way at
"Atty. Araneta" soon billed Helen for these expenses and all involved in CA-G.R. CV No. 63354, the Investigating Commissioner
issued her all the receipts 6 for these payments. These receipts all bore found that Helen had consistently maintained that she directly employed
the signatures "Atty. Ernie/Ernesto Araneta." From May 2005 until and dealt solely with respondent lawyer as her counsel; and that, indeed,
October 26, 2006, Helen paid this "Atty. Araneta" a total of P207,500.00. the pleadings that Helen submitted in evidence before the IBP showed
Helen claimed that this "Atty. Araneta" split the attorney's fees with that these were signed and subscribed by respondent lawyer as Helen's
respondent lawyer. counsel.

However, to her chagrin and dismay, Helen discovered that Furthermore, based on "Atty. Araneta's" counter-affidavit
this "Atty. Araneta" had not only been disbarred from the practice of law; which, among others, mentioned "Carlo Sanchez" as "contact man" in
but worse, the aforementioned November 13, 2006 CA Resolution was a Cebu City, the Investigating Commissioner had reasonable grounds to
total fabrication, even as the "position paper" that was supposedly filed believe that "Atty. Araneta" (as well as respondent lawyer) was part of a
with this Court was an utter simulation. With this discovery, Helen went wide-ranging racket that plagued, and even extended to the CA at Cebu
herself to the CA in Cebu City, and there found out, as a matter of fact, City — a racket which enabled Ernesto (and by extension respondent
that she and her husband had lost their case, as shown in a genuine lawyer) to bilk and milk unsuspecting litigants of huge sums of money in
copy of the February 10, 2006 CA Resolution, 7 which denied their exchange for the "successful" follow-up of cases, which in this case,
Motion for Reconsideration, as well as their Supplemental Manifestation turned out to be nothing else but a fly-by-night hustle and swindle. The
in Support of their Motion for Reconsideration in said CA-G.R. CV No. Investigating Commissioner also gave short shrift to respondent lawyer's
63354. And, even more distressing, the records likewise revealed that claim that Helen in fact knew of "Atty. Araneta's" scheme, especially of
this genuine Resolution had become final and irrevocable, thereby the fact that he had a "contact man" in the CA in Cebu, and pointed to the
forever foreclosing their right to pursue further reliefs in the case. fact that Helen had never ever mentioned this "Carlo Sanchez" in her
complaint. The Investigating Commissioner even doubted the existence
Whereupon, Helen immediately filed with the City Prosecutor of of "Carlo Sanchez," and suggested that "Carlo Sanchez" could be a mere
Bacolod City a criminal complaint 8 for estafa through falsification of lure or decoy to divert attention away from the committed shenanigans.
public document against respondent lawyer and "Atty. Ernesto S. Thus, the Investigating Commissioner concluded:
Araneta." The City Prosecutor of Bacolod City found Helen's criminal
complaint well grounded, and instituted a criminal information therefor, With the foregoing disquisition, the performance of a
now pending before Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of series of odious acts which saw the hapless Complainant being
Bacolod City. 9 extorted huge amount of money and the participation of
Respondent are all too evident. Respondent's participation and
Helen likewise filed an administrative complaint for disbarment knowledge of the same in every stage can be traced from his
against respondent lawyer before the Committee on Bar Discipline of the willfull introduction of Araneta into the defense panel of
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). This is the case at bench. Complainant. 20
The IBP issued its Order 10 directing respondent lawyer to The IBP Board of Governors in Resolution No. XX-2013-
submit his Answer. In a Manifestation, 11 John P. Deles (John), 511, 21 adopted and approved the Investigating Commissioner's findings
respondent lawyer's eldest son, informed the IBP, that about three weeks and recommendation.
before receipt of the IBP's Order, his father suffered a stroke and
underwent a brain surgery. John implored the IBP to hold in abeyance
this administrative case until his father is finally able to physically and
intelligently file an Answer to Helen's complaint. John claimed that at that The Court's Ruling
 There seems to be truth that "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was not This Court has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the
a lawyer at all as Helen was made to believe. His name does not appear legal presumption that he is innocent of charges against him until the
in the Law List, 22 and there seems to be truth to the information Helen contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he is presumed to
gathered that this "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" was disbarred because have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. 25 "For the Court
in A.C. No. 1109 (which this Court promulgated on April 27, 2005), this to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent
Court ordered the disbarment of a certain "Atty. Ernesto S. Araneta" due [lawyer] must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
to his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Indeed, considering the serious consequences of disbarment or
suspension of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that
While "Atty. Araneta" admitted of his involvement in a a clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the
fraudulent scheme in defrauding litigants that included Helen, we cannot administrative penalty." 26 "The burden of proof in disbarment and
immediately conclude that respondent lawyer himself was likewise part of suspension proceedings always rests on the shoulders of the
this racket that duped Helen. It must be stressed that, because of his complainant." 27
medical condition, respondent lawyer could not yet explain his side.
While indeed, an Answer was filed, it was John who signed the same and Under the circumstances, both duty and conscience impel us
not respondent lawyer. As such, we still cannot consider respondent to remand this administrative case for further proceedings. Fairness
lawyer to have been adequately represented. cannot be ignored.
A full-dress investigation involving a careful evaluation of WHEREFORE, Resolution No. XX-2013-511 of the Integrated
evidence from both of the parties is necessary to resolve factual issues. Bar of the Philippines adopting and approving the Report and
The serious imputations hurled at respondent lawyer warrant an Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner is
observance of due process, i.e., to accord him the opportunity to explain hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. This case is
his side of the story. We explained: ordered REMANDED to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation, report and
Due process in an administrative context does not recommendation. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby
require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of instructed to: 1) require respondent lawyer's son, John P. Deles, to
justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral provide an update on his father's health condition and, on the basis of
arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial such update; 2) to hold the case in abeyance if respondent lawyer's
of due process. x x x The standard of due process that must be stroke aftermath has significantly impaired his cognitive ability and
met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of speech that he is not capable of presenting his defense or 3) to direct
latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is respondent lawyer to file his Answer and continue with the proceedings if
not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for he is found to be medically fit and his condition having improved over
an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on time, having regained his cognitive and communication skills.
position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted
by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of SO ORDERED.
their direct testimony." 23
Leonardo-de Castro, ** Jardeleza,
We note that Atty. Mampang candidly declared that it was John Tijam and Gesmundo, *** JJ., concur.
who consulted him and sought his legal services, and, thus, it cannot be
said that respondent lawyer voluntarily and intelligently accepted Atty. ||| (Gradiola v. Deles, A.C. No. 10267, [June 18, 2018])
Mampang to represent him. Respondent lawyer, with his condition, could
not even communicate with Atty. Mampang regarding the case at the
time of filing of the Answer, which compelled the counsel to merely rely
on the available documents. In effect, Atty. Mampang substituted his
judgment for that of respondent lawyer.
Significantly, the Answer contained the following disavowals by
Atty. Mampang:
5. That the Respondent as of now may be said to have lost
most of his essential human faculties, such as
speech, motor, even his bowel movement, and he
eat[s] only through the help of his children. Literally,
he is in vegetative state, and his life is dependent
only on the help, both physical and financial, of his
children. He was discharged from the hospital, not
because he has recovered but rather because his
children do not have money anymore to pay for his
hospital bills. As of now, the only "medical
development" is that the tube used in feeding him
was removed, and he is feeding through the help of
his daughter, the younger sister of John P. Deles;
6. That it is on this premise that this counsel has to rely solely
on the documents available, such as those annexed
in the complaint filed by the complainant, as
Respondent cannot convey any idea pertinent to the
actual incidents of this case that would explain his
side on the allegations contained in the complaint.
xxx xxx xxx
7. That [neither] this counsel [nor Respondent's son
John Deles] have in [their] possession, neither [do
they have] other relevant documents x x x so that
this answer for the Respondent is simply couched on
facts, documents and records available, [primarily]
the Affidavit-Complaint of Helen Gradiola[. This]
counsel cannot in anyway relate, comprehend or
decipher [communication] from [Respondent], as he
is incapable of uttering, communicating or
responding to any question[s] ask[ed] of him; 24
With respondent lawyer not yet in a position to factually dispute
the accusations and defend himself, and considering that there was no
established lawyer-client relationship at all between him and Atty.
Mampang, albeit the latter acted for respondent lawyer's best interest,
proceeding with the investigation of the administrative case against him
would amount to a denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be
heard.