Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Balongata Vs Atty. Castillo and Martija

    Uploaded by

    kent babs
    Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija were charged with unjust and unethical conduct by Sally Bongalota for representing conflicting interests in multiple cases. Sally alleged that while Castillo represented a married couple being sued by Sally, Martija represented someone else suing the same couple in a related case. Both lawyers used the same address and identification numbers in court filings. The IBP suspended Castillo for six months for misusing Martija's IBP receipt number, but dismissed the complaint against Martija for lack of evidence. The court agreed with these findings and rulings, emphasizing that lawyers have a duty of honesty and candor to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Balongata Vs Atty. Castillo and Martija

    Uploaded by

    kent babs
    54 views1 page
    Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija were charged with unjust and unethical conduct by Sally Bongalota for representing conflicting interests in multiple cases. Sally alleged that while Castillo represented a married couple being sued by Sally, Martija represented someone else suing the same couple in a related case. Both lawyers used the same address and identification numbers in court filings. The IBP suspended Castillo for six months for misusing Martija's IBP receipt number, but dismissed the complaint against Martija for lack of evidence. The court agreed with these findings and rulings, emphasizing that lawyers have a duty of honesty and candor to the court.

    Original Title

    balongata vs atty. castillo and martija

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija were charged with unjust and unethical conduct by Sally Bongalota for representing conflicting interests in multiple cases. Sally alleged that while Castillo represented a married couple being sued by Sally, Martija represented someone else suing the same couple in a related case. Both lawyers used the same address and identification numbers in court filings. The IBP suspended Castillo for six months for misusing Martija's IBP receipt number, but dismissed the complaint against Martija for lack of evidence. The court agreed with these findings and rulings, emphasizing that lawyers have a duty of honesty and candor to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    54 views1 page

    Balongata Vs Atty. Castillo and Martija

    Uploaded by

    kent babs
    Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija were charged with unjust and unethical conduct by Sally Bongalota for representing conflicting interests in multiple cases. Sally alleged that while Castillo represented a married couple being sued by Sally, Martija represented someone else suing the same couple in a related case. Both lawyers used the same address and identification numbers in court filings. The IBP suspended Castillo for six months for misusing Martija's IBP receipt number, but dismissed the complaint against Martija for lack of evidence. The court agreed with these findings and rulings, emphasizing that lawyers have a duty of honesty and candor to the court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CBD Case No.

    176 
    Sally Bongalota vs Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija

    Babiano

    Facts:
     Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija were charged with unjust and
    unethical conduct by Sally Bongalota. To wit: representing conflicting
    interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a
    judgement which complainant might obtain.
     It was stated in the letter- complaint that when complainant filed with the
    RTC of Pasig, for estafa and a civil action against sps. Abuel, Atty. Pablito
    Castillo were the counsel for the spouses.
     Meanwhile, during the pendency of the said cases, Gregorio Lantin also filed a
    civil case with the Pasig RTC also against sps. Abuel.
     Alfonso Martija was the counsel of Lantin.
     Since the sps. Abuel were in declared in default, a writ of execution was
    issued, and the same property previously attached by Sally in the pending
    case, was levied upon.
     It was also alleged that in all the pleadings filed in those cases, Atty. Pablito
    and and atty. Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same
    IBP receipt number.
     The complainant concluded that the civil case filed by Gregorio Lantin was
    merely a part of the scheme of the spouses to frustrate the satisfaction of the
    money judgement which complainant might obtain in the civil case he filed.
     The IBP issued a resolution were Atty. Pablito Castillo be suspended from the
    practice of law for a period of 6 months for usinf the IBP receipt no. of Atty.
    Martija.
     The complaint against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
    evidence.

    ISSUE: W/N RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF UNJUST AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT.

    RULING: YES.
    The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. It is well to
    stress again that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the
    State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
    qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these
    requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to
    expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and
    pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to
    satisfy that expectation. for this reason, he is required to swear to do no
    falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

    You might also like