(CONCEPT of the Practice of Law)

A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983

RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee. ATTY. PROCOPIO S.

BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association,
Inc., complainant,
vs.
ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine Trial Lawyers
Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the
Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S. Abad could not deny and had to admit the practice. In
exculpation he gives the following lame explanation:

1. On July 23, 1979, respondent conformably with the Resolution of the

Honorable Supreme Court En Banc dated July 10, 1979, ... prior to his
taking the Oath of Office as a member of the bar, paid his Bar Admission
Fee in the amount of P175.00 as shown by Official Receipt No.
8128792, ... paid his Certification Fee in the amount of P5.00 as shown by
Official Receipt No. 8128793, ... and also paid his Membership Dues for
the year 1979-80 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as shown by
Official Receipt No. 83740,... .

2. On July 26, 1979, Atty. Romeo Mendoza, the then Clerk of Court of the
Honorable Supreme Court, included the respondent as among those
taking the Oath of Office as Member of the Bar as shown by a Letter of
Request dated July 23, 1979, ...

3. At around Eleven o' clock in the morning of July 26, 1979, while waiting
for my turn to take my Oath as a member of the Bar, I was made to sign
my Lawyer's Oath by one of the Clerk in the Office of the Bar Confidant
and while waiting there, Atty. Romeo Mendoza told me that Chief Justice,
the Honorable Enrique M. Fernando wants to talk to me about the Reply of
Mr. Jorge Uy (Deceased) to my Answer to his Complaint. The Honorable
Chief Justice told me that I have to answer the Reply and for which reason
the taking of my Lawyer's Oath was further suspended. *

4. On July 31, 1979, I filed my Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy's Answer with a
Prayer that the Honorable Supreme Court determines my fitness to be a
member of the Bar;
 5. While waiting for the appropriate action which the Honorable Supreme
Court may take upon my Prayer to determine my fitness to be a member
of the Bar, I received a letter from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
Quezon City Chapter dated May 10, 1980 informing the respondent of an
Annual General Meeting together with my Statement of Account for the
year 1980-1981, ... .

6. Believing that with my signing of the Lawyer's Oath on July 26, 1979
and my Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy's (Deceased) Answer, the Honorable
Supreme Court did not ordered for the striking of my name in the Roll of
Attorneys with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and therefore a
Member in Good Standing, I paid my membership due and other
assessments to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon City
Chapter, as shown by Official Receipt No. 110326 and Official Receipt No.
0948, ... . Likewise respondent paid his Professional Tax Receipt as
shown by Official Receipt No. 058033 and Official Receipt No.
4601685, ... .

7. On February 28, 1981, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Quezon

City Chapter also included the name of the respondent as a Qualified
Voter for the election of officers and directors for the year 1981-1982, ... .

8. Respondent's belief and good faith was further enhanced by the fact
that on January 8, 1981, Complainant Jorge Uy in SBC607 died and
herein respondent submitted a verified Notice and Motion with the
Honorable Supreme Court on April 27, 1981; notifying the Court of this
fact with a prayer that herein respondent be allowed to take his Oath as
Member of the Bar;

9. Thereafter, respondent was again assessed by the Integrated Bar for

his 1981-1982 membership due and other assessment for which the
undersigned paid as shown by Official Receipt No. 132734 and Official
Receipt No. 3363, ... .

10. Respondent likewise paid his Professional Tax Receipt for 1981 as
shown by Official Receipt No. 3195776, ... .

11. Respondent likewise has a Certificate of Membership in the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines as well as a Certificate of Membership in Good
Standing with the Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, ....

Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances which he has narrated do not
constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and the right to practise law thereafter. He
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court and his signature
in the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.)

The proven charge against respondent Abad constitutes contempt of court (Rule 71,
Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.)

WHEREFORE, Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined Five Hundred (P500.00) pesos
payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice failing which he shall serve
twenty-five (25) days imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.

(APPLICABILITY of the CPR to government lawyers )

A.C. No. 9018, April 20, 2016

TERESITA P. FAJARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. NICANOR C.

ALVAREZ, Respondent.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

This administrative case involves the determination of whether a lawyer

working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under
the Department of Health is authorized to privately practice law, and
consequently, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's
fees is reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.

Complainant Teresita P. Fajardo (Teresita) was the Municipal Treasurer of

San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. She hired respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez
(Atty. Alvarez) to defend her in criminal and administrative cases before the
Office of the Ombudsman.

The parties have differing versions of the facts as summarized by the

Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Teresita's version of the facts is as follows:

Around 2009, Teresita hired Atty. Alvarez to handle several cases filed
against her before the Office of the Ombudsman.1 Atty. Alvarez was then
working in the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health.2 He
asked for P1,400,000.00 as acceptance fee.3 However, Atty. Alvarez did not
enter his appearance before the Office of the Ombudsman nor sign any
pleadings.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Alvarez assured Teresita that he had friends connected with the Office
of the Ombudsman who could help with dismissing her case for a certain
fee.5 Atty. Alvarez said that he needed to pay the amount of P500,000.00 to
his friends and acquaintances working at the Office of the Ombudsman to
have the cases against Teresita dismissed.6ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

However, just two (2) weeks after Teresita and Atty. Alvarez talked, the
Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution and decision recommending
the filing of a criminal complaint against Teresita, and her dismissal from
service, respectively.7ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Teresita then demanded that Atty. Alvarez return at least a portion of the
amount she gave.8 Atty. Alvarez promised to return the amount to Teresita;
however, he failed to fulfill this promise.9 Teresita sent a demand letter to
Atty. Alvarez, which he failed to heed.10ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On the other hand, Atty. Alvarez claims the following:

Atty. Alvarez is Legal Officer III of the National Center for Mental Health
under the Department of Health.11 He has authority to engage in private
practice of the profession.12 He represented Teresita in several cases before
the Office of the Ombudsman.13ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Alvarez and Teresita had an arrangement that Teresita would consult
Atty. Alvarez whenever a case was filed against her.14 Atty. Alvarez would
then advise Teresita to send him a copy of the complaint and its
attachments through courier.15 Afterwards, Atty. Alvarez would evaluate the
case and call Teresita to discuss his fees in accepting and handling the
case.16 A 50% downpayment would be deposited to Atty. Alvarez's or his
secretary's bank account.17 The balance would then be paid in
installments.18 The success fee was voluntary on Teresita's
part.19ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On July 10, 2009, Atty. Alvarez received a call from Teresita regarding a
meeting at Shangri-La Mall to discuss the decision and resolution she
received from the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing her from service for
dishonesty and indicting her for violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No.
3019, respectively.20 Atty. Alvarez accepted the case and asked for
P500,000.00 as acceptance fee.21 According to Atty. Alvarez, he arrived at
the amount after considering the difficulty of the case and the workload that
would be involved, which would include appeals before the Court of Appeals
and this Court.22 However, the fee is exclusive of filing fees, appearance
fees, and other miscellaneous fees such as costs for photocopying and
mailing.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Alvarez claimed that he prepared several pleadings in connection with

Teresita's case:

(1) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the administrative
case;
(2) motion for reconsideration filed on July 23, 2009 in connection with the criminal case;
(3) petition for injunction filed on October 15, 2009 before the Regional Trial Court of
Gapan City; and
(4) petition for preliminary injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order filed
before the Court of Appeals on November 18, 2009, and the amended petition on
November 26, 2009.24

Atty. Alvarez also said that he prepared several letters to different

government officials and agencies.25ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Atty. Alvarez alleged that Teresita made staggered payments for the
amounts they agreed on.26 Teresita only paid the balance of the agreed
acceptance fee equivalent to P450,000.00 on February 11, 2010.27 While
Teresita paid P60,000.00 for the miscellaneous expenses, she did not pay
the expenses for other legal work performed and advanced by Atty.
Alvarez.28ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On the last day for filing of the petition for review of the Office of the
Ombudsman's Decision, Teresita informed Atty. Alvarez that she was no
longer interested in retaining Atty. Alvarez's services as she had hired Atty.
Tyrone Contado from Nueva Ecija, who was Atty. Alvarez's co-counsel in the
cases against Teresita.29ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On June 1, 2011, Teresita filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant a
Verified Complaint praying for the disbarment of Atty. Alvarez.30 This Court
required Atty. Alvarez to file his comment on the complaint within 10 days
from notice.31ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

On December 7, 2011, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation, report, and
recommendation.32ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In his Report and Recommendation33 dated November 12, 2012,

Investigating Commissioner Honesto A. Villamayor found Atty. Alvarez guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended Atty.
Alvarez's suspension from the practice of law for one (1) year.34 Atty.
Alvarez was also ordered to return the amount of P700,000.00 to Teresita
with legal interest from the time of demand until its full payment.35 The
dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, finding Respondent guilty of committing unlawful, immoral and
deceitful acts of the Canon of Professional Responsibility, [it] is
recommended that he be suspended for one (1) year in the practice of law
and he be ordered to return the amount of P700,000.00 to the Complainant
within two (2) months from receipt of this order with legal interest from the
time of demand, until fully paid, with a warning that repetition of [a] similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.36cralawred
On the unauthorized practice of law, the Investigating Commissioner found
that while Atty. Alvarez claimed that he was authorized by his superior to
privately practice law, the pleadings he allegedly prepared and filed did not
bear his name and signature.37 Hence, the Investigating Commissioner
stated that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The time that Respondent spent in following up the case of Complainant in
the Office of the Ombudsman is a time lost to the government which could
have been used in the service of many taxpayers[.]38cralawred
In any case, granting that Atty. Alvarez was authorized by his superior to
practice his profession, the Investigating Commissioner stated that Atty.
Alvarez was prohibited to handle cases involving malversation of funds by
government officials such as a municipal
treasurer.39ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Moreover, the Investigating Commissioner found that the attorney's fees

Atty. Alvarez asked for were unreasonable:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
From all indication, Complainant was forced to give to the Respondent the
amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of Respondent that he has
friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who can help with a fee. That
because of that guarantee, Complainant was obligated to shell out every
now and then money for the satisfaction of the allege[d] friend of the
Respondent[.]

Complainant is an ordinary Municipal Treasurer of a 4th or 5th class

municipality and the amount of attorney's fees demanded by the Respondent
is very much excessive. . . . The exorbitant amount that he demanded from
complainant is too much for a lowly local government employee. What the
Respondent did is not only illegal, immoral and dishonest but also taking
advantage of a defenseless victim.

....
While a lawyer should charge only fair and reasonable fees, no hard and fast
rule may be set in the determination of what a reasonable fee is, or what is
not. That must be established from the facts of each case[.]

....

The fees claimed and received by the Respondent for the alleged cases he
handled despite the fact that the records and evidence does not show that
he ever signed pleadings filed, the amount of P700,000.00 is reasonable,
thus, fairness and equity dictate, he has to return the excess amount of
P700,000.00 to the complainant[.]40cralawred
In Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-77841 dated June 21, 2013, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted the findings
and recommendations of the Investigating
Commissioner:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT AND APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED
AND APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation fully supported by
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules and considering
that complaint [sic] is guilty of unlawful, immoral and deceitful acts, Atty.
Nicanor C. Alvarez is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year with [a] Warning that repetition of the same acts shall be
dealt with more sever[ejly. Further, he is Ordered to Return the amount of
P700,000.00 to complainant with legal interest from the time of
demand.42 (Emphasis in the original)cralawred
Atty. Alvarez moved for reconsideration of the Resolution,43 but the Motion
was denied by the Board of Governors in Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-
28644 dated May 3, 2014. The Resolution reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to DENY Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, there being no
cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the resolution
subject of the motion, it being a mere reiteration of the matters which had
already been threshed out and taken into consideration. Thus, Resolution
No. XX-2013-778 dated June 21, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED. 45 (Emphasis in
the original)cralawred
We resolve the following issues:

First, whether respondent Atty. Nicanor C. Alvarez, as a lawyer working in

the Legal Section of the National Center for Mental Health under the
Department of Health, is authorized to engage in the private practice of law;
and

Second, whether the amount charged by respondent for attorney's fees is

reasonable under the principle of quantum meruit.

The Investigating Commissioner did not make a categorical declaration that

respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of his profession. The
Investigating Commissioner merely alluded to respondent's unauthorized
practice of law.

We find that respondent committed unauthorized practice of his profession.

Respondent claims that he is authorized to practice his profession46 as shown

in the letter dated August 1, 2001 of National Center for Mental Health Chief
Bernardino A. Vicente.47 The letter reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
TO           :            ATTY. NICANOR C. ALVAREZ
                            Legal Officer III
                            This Center

Subject    :            Authority to engage in private practice of profession

This refers to your request for permission to engage in private practice of

your profession.

In accordance with Administrative Order No. 21, s. 1999 of the Department

of Health, which vested in the undersigned the authority to grant permission
for the exercise of profession or engage in the practice of profession, you are
hereby authorized to teach or engage in the practice of your
profession provided it will not run in conflict with the interest of the Center
and the Philippine government as a whole. In the exigency of the service
however, or when public interest so requires, this authority may be revoked
anytime.

Please be guided accordingly.

[sgd.]
BERNARDINO A. VICENTE, MD, FFPPA, MHA, CESO IV
Medical Center Chief II48 (Emphasis supplied)cralawred
Respondent practiced law even if he did not sign any pleading. In the
context of this case, his surreptitious actuations reveal illicit intent. Not only
did he do unauthorized practice, his acts also show badges of offering to
peddle influence in the Office of the Ombudsman.

In Cayetano v. Monsod,49 the modern concept of the term "practice of law"

includes the more traditional concept of litigation or appearance before
courts:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is
also considered to be in the practice of law when
he:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"x x x for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person,
firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or
appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending
or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body,
committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle
controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any act or
acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients
under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law,
or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law."cralawred
....

The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation

briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the practice of
law in even broader terms as advocacy, counseling and public service.
"One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the
profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of the law and is of a kind
usual for attorneys engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he
follows some one or more lines of employment such as this he is a practicing
attorney at law within the meaning of the statute."cralawred
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill."

....

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of

law," particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Arty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor—verily more
than satisfy the constitutional requirement—that he has been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.50 (Emphasis supplied)cralawred
Cayetano was reiterated in Lingan v. Calubaquib:51
Practice of law is "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience." It
includes "[performing] acts which are characteristics of the [legal]
profession" or "[rendering any kind of] service [which] requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill."

Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered

practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod, this court cited the deliberations of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission and agreed that work rendered by
lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring "[the use of] legal knowledge
or legal talent" is practice of law.52 (Citations omitted)cralawred
By preparing the pleadings of and giving legal advice to complainant,
respondent practiced law.

Under Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
and Memorandum Circular No. 17, series of 1986,53 government officials or
employees are prohibited from engaging in private practice of their
profession unless authorized by their department heads. More importantly, if
authorized, the practice of profession must not conflict nor tend to conflict
with the official functions of the government official or
employee:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Republic Act No. 6713:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to acts and

omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts
and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared
to be unlawful:

....

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials
and employees during their incumbency shall not:

....

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by

the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with their official functions[.]

....

Memorandum Circular No. 17:

The authority to grant permission to any official or employee shall be

granted by the head of the ministry or agency in accordance with Section
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules, which
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private
business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial,
credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written permission
from the head of Department; Provided, That this prohibition will be absolute
in the case of those officers and employees whose duties and responsibilities
require that their entire time be at the disposal of the
Government: Provided, further, That if an employee is granted permission to
engage in outside activities, the time so devoted outside of office hours
should be fixed by the chief of the agency to the end that it will not impair in
any way the efficiency of the other officer or employee: And provided,
finally, That no permission is necessary in the case of investments, made by
an officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict
between his private interests and public duties, or in any way influence him
in the discharge of his duties, and he shall not take part in the management
of the enterprise or become an officer or member of the board of
directors",cralawred
subject to any additional conditions which the head of the office deems
necessary in each particular case in the interest of the service, as expressed
in the various issuances of the Civil Service Commission.cralawred
In Abella v. Cruzabra,54 the respondent was a Deputy Register of Deeds of
General Santos City. While serving as an incumbent government employee,
the respondent "filed a petition for commission as a notary public and was
commissioned . . . without obtaining prior authority from the Secretary of
the Department of Justice."55 According to the complainant, the respondent
had notarized around 3,000 documents.56 This Court found the respondent
guilty of engaging in notarial practice without written authority from the
Secretary of Justice. Thus:

It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary
public, she did not obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the
D[epartment] [of] J[ustice]. Respondent's superior, the Register of Deeds,
cannot issue any authorization because he is not the head of the
Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized her,
respondent failed to present any proof of that written permission.
Respondent cannot feign ignorance or good faith because respondent filed
her petition for commission as a notary public after Memorandum Circular
No. 17 was issued in 1986.57ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In this case, respondent was given written permission by the Head of the
National Center for Mental Health, whose authority was designated under
Department of Health Administrative Order No. 21, series of
1999.58ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

However, by assisting and representing complainant in a suit against the

Ombudsman and against government in general, respondent put himself in a
situation of conflict of interest.

Respondent's practice of profession was expressly and impliedly conditioned

on the requirement that his practice will not be "in conflict with the interest
of the Center and the Philippine government as a
whole."59ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In Javellana v. Department of Interior and Local Government,60 the

petitioner was an incumbent City Councilor or member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Bago City. He was a lawyer by profession and had
continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority from
the Regional Director of the Department of Local Government.61 In 1989, the
petitioner acted as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang and
filed a case for Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages against
Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia, City Engineer of Bago
City.62ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Engr. Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed an administrative case before the

Department of Local Government for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713 and relevant Department of Local Government memorandum
circulars on unauthorized practice of profession, as well as for oppression,
misconduct, and abuse of authority.63 While the case was pending before
Department of Local Government, the petitioner was able to secure a written
authority to practice his profession from the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government, "provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with his official functions."64ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

This Court in Javellana observed that the petitioner practiced his profession

in conflict with his functions as City Councilor and against the interests of
government:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the first place, complaints against public officers and employees relating
or incidental to the performance of their duties are necessarily impressed
with public interest for by express constitutional mandate, a public office is a
public trust. The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and Catapang
against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a complaint against the City
Government of Bago City, their real employer, of which petitioner Javellana
is a councilman. Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would
actually be a judgment against the City Government. By serving as counsel
for the complaining employees and assisting them to prosecute their claims
against City Engineer Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Memorandum
Circular No. 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of R[epublic] A[ct] [No.]
6713) prohibiting a government official from engaging in the private practice
of his profession, if such practice would represent interests adverse to the
government.

Petitioner's contention that Section 90 of the Local Government Code of

1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 violate Article VIII, Section
5 of the Constitution is completely off tangent. Neither the statute nor the
circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe
rules on the practice of law. The Local Government Code and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public
officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public
duties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where
the law allows it.65cralawred
There is basic conflict of interest here. Respondent is a public officer, an
employee of government. The Office of the Ombudsman is part of
government. By appearing against the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent
is going against the same employer he swore to serve.

In addition, the government has a serious interest in the prosecution of

erring employees and their corrupt acts. Under the Constitution, "[p]ublic
office is a public trust."66 The Office of the Ombudsman, as "protectors of the
[P]eople,"67 is mandated to "investigate and prosecute . . . any act or
omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act
or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient."68ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Thus, a conflict of interest exists when an incumbent government employee

represents another government employee or public officer in a case pending
before the Office of the Ombudsman. The incumbent officer ultimately goes
against government's mandate under the Constitution to prosecute public
officers or employees who have committed acts or omissions that appear to
be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.69 Furthermore, this is consistent
with the constitutional directive that "[p]ublic officers and employees must,
at all times, be accountable to the [P]eople, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives."70ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

The objective in disciplinary cases is not to punish the erring officer or

employee but to continue to uplift the People's trust in government and to
ensure excellent public service:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[W]hen an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
punishment of that officer or employee, but the improvement of the public
service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the
government. . . . These constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in
our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They
should be taken as working standards by all in the public service.71cralawred
Having determined that respondent illicitly practiced law, we find that there
is now no need to determine whether the fees he charged were reasonable.

In disbarment or disciplinary cases pending before this Court, the

complainant must prove his or her allegations through substantial
evidence.72 In Advincula v. Macabata,73 this Court dismissed a complaint for
disbarment due to the lack of evidence in proving the complainant's
allegations:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes
the allegations—ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per
rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit. In the case at bar,
complainant miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of
her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation
is not synonymous with guilt.74 (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)cralawred
Moreover, lawyers should not be hastily disciplined or penalized unless it is
shown that they committed a transgression of their oath or their duties,
which reflects on their fitness to enjoy continued status as a member of the
bar:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only
for the most weighty reasons and only on clear cases of misconduct which
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and member of the Bar. Only those acts which cause loss of moral
character should merit disbarment or suspension, while those acts which
neither affect nor erode the moral character of the lawyer should only justify
a lesser sanction unless they are of such nature and to such extent as to
clearly show the lawyer's unfltness to continue in the practice of law. The
dubious character of the act charged as well as the motivation which induced
the lawyer to commit it must be clearly demonstrated before suspension or
disbarment is meted out. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
attended the commission of the offense should also be
considered.75cralawred
Likewise, we find that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility when he communicated to or, at the very least,
made it appear to complainant that he knew people from the Office of the
Ombudsman who could help them get a favorable decision in complainant's
case.

Lawyers are mandated to uphold, at all times, integrity and dignity in the
practice of their profession.76 Respondent violated the oath he took when he
proposed to gain a favorable outcome for complainant's case by resorting to
his influence among staff in the Office where the case was
pending.77ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Thus, respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1,

Rules 1.01, and 1.0278 prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.79 Respondent's act of ensuring that
the case will be dismissed because of his personal relationships with officers
or employees in the Office of the Ombudsman is unlawful and dishonest.
Canon 780 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to
always "uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."

In relation, Canon 1381 mandates that lawyers "shall rely upon the merits of
his [or her] cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence,
or gives the appearance of influencing the court."

A lawyer that approaches a judge to try to gain influence and receive a

favorable outcome for his or her client violates Canon 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.82 This act of influence peddling is highly immoral
and has no place in the legal profession:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The highly immoral implication of a lawyer approaching a judge—or a judge
evincing a willingness—to discuss, in private, a matter related to a case
pending in that judge's sala cannot be over-emphasized. The fact that Atty.
Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially through a
mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that Atty. Singson was
indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his client's favor. This conduct
is not acceptable in the legal profession.83cralawred
In Jimenez v. Verano, Jr.,84 we disciplined the respondent for preparing a
release order for his clients using the letterhead of the Department of Justice
and the stationery of the Secretary:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The way respondent conducted himself manifested a clear intent to gain
special treatment and consideration from a government agency. This is
precisely the type of improper behavior sought to be regulated by the
codified norms for the bar. Respondent is duty-bound to actively avoid any
act that tends to influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an
ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted.

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration
of justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The
conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his
client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.
....

Zeal and persistence in advancing a client's cause must always be within the
bounds of the law. A self-respecting independence in the exercise of the
profession is expected if an attorney is to remain a member of the bar. In
the present case, we find that respondent fell short of these exacting
standards. Given the import of the case, a warning is a mere slap on the
wrist that would not serve as commensurate penalty for the
offense.85cralawred
Similar to the present case, in Bueno v. Rañeses,86 we disbarred a lawyer
who solicited bribe money from his client in violation of Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Rather than merely suspend Atty. Rañeses as had been done in Bildner, the
Court believes that Atty. Rañeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty
of disbarment because of the multi-layered impact and implications of what
he did; by his acts he proved himself to be what a lawyer should not be, in a
lawyer's relations to the client, to the court and to the Integrated Bar.

First, he extracted money from his client for a purpose that is both false and
fraudulent. It is false because no bribery apparently took place as Atty.
Rañeses in fact lost the case. It is fraudulent because the professed purpose
of the exaction was the crime of bribery. Beyond these, he maligned the
judge and the Judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won,
not on the merits, but through deceitful means—a decidedly black mark
against the Judiciary. Last but not the least, Atty. Rañeses grossly
disrespected the IBP by his cavalier attitude towards its disciplinary
proceedings.

From these perspectives, Atty. Rañeses wronged his client, the judge
allegedly on the "take," the Judiciary as an institution, and the IBP of which
he is a member. The Court cannot and should not allow offenses such as
these to pass unredressed. Let this be a signal to one and all—to all lawyers,
their clients and the general public—that the Court will not hesitate to act
decisively and with no quarters given to defend the interest of the public, of
our judicial system and the institutions composing it, and to ensure that
these are not compromised by unscrupulous or misguided members of the
Bar.87 (Emphasis supplied)cralawred
In the interest of ridding itself of corrupt personnel who encourage influence
peddling, and in the interest of maintaining the high ethical standards of
employees in the judiciary, this Court did not hesitate in dismissing its own
employee from government service when she peddled influence in the Court
of Appeals:88
What brings our judicial system into disrepute are often the actuations of a
few erring court personnel peddling influence to party-litigants, creating the
impression that decisions can be bought and sold, ultimately resulting in the
disillusionment of the public. This Court has never wavered in its vigilance in
eradicating the so-called "bad eggs" in the judiciary. And whenever
warranted by the gravity of the offense, the supreme penalty of dismissal in
an administrative case is meted to erring personnel.89cralawred
The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant was "forced to
give . . . Respondent the amount of P1,400,000.00 because of the words of
Respondent that he ha[d] friends in the Office of the Ombudsman who
c[ould] help with a fee."90 It is because of respondent's assurances to
complainant that she sent him money over the course of several
months.91 These assurances are seen from the text messages that
respondent sent complainant:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Cnbi ko dun sa kontak dati na magbibigay tayo na pera sa allowance lang

muna later na ang bayad pag labas ng reso at kaliwaan pero sbi nya mas
maganda kung isasabay na ang pera pagbgay ng letter mo sa omb.. Parang
dun tayo nagkamali pero ang solusyon ay sana ibalik nila ang pera . . in d
meantime hindi dapat apektado ang kaso at kailangan an Appeal sa CA at
may deadline yun

DATE: 31-05-2010

TIME: 5:24 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro, naLBC n b ang Reso? Kung Jan un pnrmahn ...

DATE: 21-05-2010

TIME: 5:13 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....
FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Pnro sbi ng Dep Omb la png cnabi sa knya ng Omb. Ang CA Reso pnaiwan n
Orly @ studyohn nya (txt kontal)

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 6:07 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Yung blessing pala ni gutierez ang hnhntay ng overall dep omb si orly at dun
din siya subok kuha letter pero nasbhan na si gutierez ng dep omb for Luzon
sbi ko pwwde b nila gawin total alam na ni gutierez. . . Maya tawag ko sayo
update

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 12:44 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud mrng Tess hindi na svmagot kahapon tnxt ko pero minsan hndi tlga
sumasagot yun nag ttxt lang pagkatapos kaya lang d mo pala naiintindihan
ang txt nya bisaya "istudyahun" ibig sabihn kausapin pa so nasbi na nya sa
omb yung letter at istudzahan pa

DATE: 31-03-2010
TIME: 8:25 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Ok panero update ko na lang client pero nag txt tlga kailangan daw nya
letter habang wala pa omb reso., Txt mo lang ko panero, have a nice
holidays., (sagot ko yan tess)

DATE: 03-03-2010

TIME: 5:03 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Sa dep omb for Luzon na nya follow up ang MR at saka overall dep omb si
orly dun nya kukunin letter

DATE: 30-03-2010

TIME: 5:00 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro. Ang Dep. Omb. My closd dor mtng pro pnkta s knya ang note
q at sabi rw bumalik aq aftr Holy wk. C Orly nman ay ngsabi n es2dyuhn p
rw nya.
DATE: 30-03-2010

TIME: 4:52 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Binigay ko na pera kahapon at kinausap ko para sa letter magkikita pa kami

marnaya las 2 at kukunin nya copy letter natin kay sales at CA reso

DATE: 15-04-2010

TIME: 12:32 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Tess ndpst mo na? Kakausapin ko kasi na qc na lang kami kita at malapit

ako dun maya at hindi na sa crsng. Tnx

DATE: 14-04-2010

TIME: 1:29 pm

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm pnro. Ok ba ang 15k rep maya 6pm? Thnx (txt ng kontak tess
kausapin ko mbuti sa letter)

DATE: 14-04-2010

TIME: 10:25 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Pnro ung rep alo n bngay mo 1st Mar 24 ay ok Ing pra s 2 falo-ups q Mar 25
@ Mar 30. As usual, magkita tau Apr 14 @ kunin q 20th para sa falo-up Apr
15 thnx

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:58 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Ok panero kailangan malinaw din ang presentation lp sa client panero at ang

impression nya yun na ang hningi natin... so april 15 panero an balik mo sa
MR at yung letter form omb to dof bhala ka na sa diskarte panero pag
nakakuha tayo nakahanda na 150k dun

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:56 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Pnero dapat maalala mo n ung purpose ng 400th hindi directly delivery ng

Reso granting d MR pro ung delivery by the Dep Omb ng letr of appeal 2 d
Omb at pgpaliwang nya sa Omb. Re sa hnhngi ng rspondnt n modfcation ng
Dcsion. Nung 1st mtng ntn Mar 24, ngin4m q sau n ngawa n i2 ng Dep Omb
pro kausapn p ng Omb c Orly. Itong huli ang nabtn p, pro yon ay dscrtion n
ng Omb@ wing control d2 and Dep. Omb.

DATE: 08-04-2010

TIME: 10:55 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Tess gud mrng, wag mo kalimutan mgdpst 25k today 6pm mtng naming
omb tnx.

DATE: 24-03-2010

TIME: 10:23 am

TYPE: Text Message

....

FROM: Atty. Alvarez <+639063630224>

SUBJECT:

Gud pm uli pnro. Kung subukan q n lkrn ky Orly ung cnabi mong letr adrsd 2
DOF Sec @ synd n Orly ang letr, pktanong s rspndnt kung ok b s knya nab
yarn nya aq ng Atty's fee n 75thou upfront @ another 75thou upon receipt
of a DOF ordr holdng n abyans implmntation of hr dsmsal due 2 Orly's letr?
thnx

DATE: 11-03-2010
TIME: 7:03 pm

TYPE: Text Message92cralawred
In response to his alleged text messages, respondent claims that
complainant must have confused him with her other contacts.93 Respondent
found it "mesmerizing" that complainant was able to save all those alleged
text messages from two (2) years ago.94 Moreover, assuming these
messages were "true, still they [were] not legally admissible as they [were]
covered by the lawyer-client privileged communication as those supposed
texts '[had been] made for the purpose and in the course of employment,
[were] regarded as privileged and the rule of exclusion [was] strictly
enforced.'"95ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

In cases involving influence peddling or bribery, "[t]he transaction is always

done in secret and often only between the two parties
concerned."96 Nevertheless, as found by the Investigating Commissioner and
as shown by the records, we rule that there is enough proof to hold
respondent guilty of influence peddling.

We agree with the penalty recommended by the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines Board of Governors. We find respondent's acts of influence
peddling, coupled with unauthorized practice of law, merit the penalty of
suspension of one (1) year from the practice of law. To be so bold as to
peddle influence before the very institution that is tasked to prosecute
corruption speaks much about respondent's character and his attitude
towards the courts and the bar.

Lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships

with regulators, investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system,
weaken the rule of law, and debase themselves even as they claim to be
members of a noble profession. Practicing law should not degenerate to
one's ability to have illicit access. Rather, it should be about making an
honest appraisal of the client's situation as seen through the evidence fairly
and fully gathered. It should be about making a discerning and diligent
reading of the applicable law. It is foremost about attaining justice in a fair
manner. Law exists to temper, with its own power, illicit power and unfair
advantage. It should not be conceded as a tool only for those who cheat by
unduly influencing people or public officials.

It is time that we unequivocally underscore that to even imply to a client

that a lawyer knows who will make a decision is an act worthy of the utmost
condemnation. If we are to preserve the nobility of this profession, its
members must live within its ethical parameters. There is never an excuse
for influence peddling.

While this Court is not a collection agency for faltering debtors,97 this Court
has ordered restitution of amounts to complainants due to the erroneous
actions of lawyers.98 Respondent is, therefore, required to return to
complainant the amount of P500,000.00—the amount that respondent
allegedly gave his friends connected with the Office of the Ombudsman.

WHEREFORE, Respondent Arty. Nicanor C. Alvarez is guilty of violating the

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year with
a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with
more severely. Respondent is ORDERED to return the amount of
P500,000.00 with legal interest to complainant Teresita P. Fajardo.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
be appended to respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies
shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.

(Unauthorized Practice of Law)

A.C. No. 7269               November 23, 2011

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, Complainant,

vs.
ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment filed by Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana
(Noe-Lacsamana) against Atty. Yolando F. Busmente (Busmente) before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The Antecedent Facts

Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the 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 counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso
(Ulaso). Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Ulaso’s deed of sale over the property subject of
Civil Case No. SCA-2481 was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an ejectment case
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), San Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284,
where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for falsification was filed against
Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one
Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) would accompany Ulaso
in court, projecting herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the
minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284 nine times from 25 November
2003 to 8 February 2005. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders and
notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamana
alleged that upon verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant
for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa’s employment with him ended in
2000 but Dela Rosa was able to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the
help of Regine Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmente’s former secretary. Busmente alleged
that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the
Answer1 presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged.

The Decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline

In its Report and Recommendation,2 the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)

found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer and that she represented Ulaso as Busmente’s
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente
claimed that Dela Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there was no proof of her
separation from employment. The IBP-CBD found that notices from the MTC San Juan,
as well as the pleadings of the case, were all sent to Busmente’s designated office
address. The IBP-CBD stated that Busmente’s only excuse was that Dela Rosa
connived with his former secretary Macasieb so that the notices and pleadings would
not reach him.

The IBP-CBD rejected the affidavit submitted by Judy M. Ortalez (Ortalez), Busmente’s
staff, alleging Macasieb’s failure to endorse pleadings and notices of Civil Case No.
9284 to Busmente. The 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
Macasieb withholding pleadings and notices from Busmente. The IBP-CBD also noted
that Macasieb was still working at Busmente’s office in November 2003 as shown by the
affidavit attached to a Motion to Lift Order of Default that she signed. However, even if
Macasieb resigned in November 2003, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until
2005, which belied Busmente’s allegation that Dela Rosa was able to illegally practice
law using his office address without his knowledge and only due to Dela Rosa’s
connivance with Macasieb. As regards Busmente’s allegation that his signature on the
Answer was forged, the IBP-CBD gave Busmente the opportunity to coordinate with the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to prove that his signature was forged but he
failed to submit any report from the NBI despite the lapse of four months from the time
he reserved his right to submit the report.

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 and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with
modification by reducing the period of Busmente’s suspension to six months.

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, 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

The issue in this case is whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting
Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of
law.

The Ruling of this Court

We agree with the IBP.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of
law.

The Court ruled that 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.5 The Court further ruled that holding one’s self out as a
lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as 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. 6

The Court explained:

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 fails to maintain proper standards of moral and
professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the
bar from the 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 profession enjoin him not to
permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible
the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law
makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the
unauthorized practice of law.7

In this case, it has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a member of the Bar,
misrepresented herself as Busmente’s collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284.
The only question is whether Busmente indirectly or directly assisted Dela Rosa in her
illegal practice of law.

Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa’s employment in his office ended in 2000 and that
Dela Rosa was able to continue with her illegal practice of law through connivance with
Macasieb, another member 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 to represent Ulaso until 2005. Pleadings and court notices were still sent to
Busmente’s office until 2005. The IBP-CBD noted that Dela Rosa’s practice should have
ended in 2003 when Macasieb left.

We agree. Busmente’s office continued to receive all the notices of Civil Case No. 9284.
The 7 December 2004 Order8 of Judge Elvira DC. Panganiban (Judge Panganiban) in
Civil Case No. 9284 showed that Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa was still representing Ulaso
in the case. In that Order, Judge Panganiban set the preliminary conference of Civil
Case No. 9284 on 8 February 2005. It would have been impossible for Dela Rosa to
continue representing Ulaso in the case, considering Busmente’s claim that Macasieb
already resigned, if Dela Rosa had no access to the files in Busmente’s office.

Busmente, in his motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 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 the same person. The report shows that Busmente only submitted to the NBI the
questioned signature in the Answer. The IBP-CBD report, however, showed that there
were other documents signed by Busmente, including the Pre-Trial Brief dated 14
November 2003 and Motion to Lift Order of Default dated 22 November 2003. Noe-
Lacsamana also submitted a letter dated 14 August 2003 addressed to her as well as
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.

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:
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;

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.

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Busmente’s personal record in the Office
of the Bar Confidant.1âwphi1 Let a copy of this Decision be also furnished to all
chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and to all courts in the land.

SO ORDERED.