Reno
R. Gonzales, Jr. and Bryan F. Concepcion v. Attys. Socrates Rivera and Cres Dan
Bangoy
A.C.
No. 10627/6622
July
8, 2024
FACTS:
In the
July 10, 2012 Decision in Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos, the Court disbarred
Atty. Bede Tabalingcos for engaging in Bigamy. Thereafter, the Court denied
with finality Tabalingcos’ Motion for Reconsideration. Records revealed that he
received a copy of the said Resolution on October 2, 2012. Despite his
disbarment, he continued to perform acts that constituted the practice of law. Thus,
complainants filed the letter-request informing the Court of his actions. The
Court in A.C. No. 6622, it found Tabalingcos guilty of unauthorized practice of
law. Bangoy filed his Comment. He explained that he left the law firm in August
2012 to establish own law office because of the disbarment of Tabalingcos.
Moreover, he denied any knowledge or participation in: a) Tabalingcos’
unauthorized practice of law; b) the cases Tabalingcos allegedly appeared as a
counsel; and c) the pleadings Tabalingcos purportedly signed. He thus, prayed
that the case against him be dismissed for lack of merit. For his part, Rivera failed
to file his comment. The complainants argued that Bangoy’s signature in a motion
was a confirmation that he was still a practicing member of the law firm; i.)
he was still a practicing member of the law firm; ii.) he knew about the BSP
case; iii) he knew of Tabalingcos’ continued unlawful practice of law; and iv.)
he knew of the continuous use of his name by Tabalingcos’ law firm. Finally,
they averred that Rivera’s failure to comment was an implied admission of his
knowledge and consent to Tabalingcos’ unauthorized practice of law.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not grounds exist to hold respondents administratively liable.
HELD:
Yes.
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, such as identifying oneself as an attorney,
or associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of
law, including the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings. A lawyer who has been disbarred but who
nonetheless continues to perform these acts is guilty of unauthorized practice
of law, and a lawyer who assists in such unauthorized practice of law is
equally guilty of violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPRA. In this case,
Bangoy knew that Tabalingcos was already disbarred and no longer authorized to
practice law when he co-signed as counsel the Motion for Extension of Time to
File Memorandum in the BSP case. Despite his denial, the records and his own
admission show that he knew about Tabalingcos’ disbarment weeks before he
supposedly left the Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office and at least two
months prior to his co-signing the said motion in the BSP case. This
notwithstanding, he knowingly and willfully signed the motion together with
Tabalingcos, effectively holding out to the public that they are authorized to
represent their client and file said motion as regular members of the
Philippine Bar in good standing even when Tabalingcos is not. Verily,
Tabalingcos’ act constituted unauthorized practice of law – as in fact found by
the Court in the August 19, 2014 – with which Bangoy knowingly and willingly participated
in.
It is settled
that the practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of
good moral character, with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained
and certified. 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. As such, it is a
lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law. A lawyer who assists and abets the unauthorized
practice of law by a non-lawyer deliberately violates the Lawyer’s Oath and
transgressed the canons of the CPRA. He or she thereby manifests a lack of
respect for the law and dishonesty and deserves to be severely punished.
With
respect to Rivera, however, the Court is not convinced that he should be held
administratively liable for assisting in unauthorized practice of law for the
mere act of signing the Notice of Change of Address as co-counsel of the Tabalingcos
and Associates Law Office in the BSP case. He had no power or authority to
remove Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office as his co-counsel on record in the
BSP case. Thus, he could have merely included the name Tabalingcos and
Associates Law Office in said notice to state a matter of record. Further,
there appears to be no ethical compulsion for a lawyer to cause the removal of
a disbarred lawyer from the name of a law firm which the former is a co-counsel
of. While the Court, in the case of Kimteng v. Atty. Young, ruled that
the name of a disbarred lawyer cannot be retained in the firm’s name as it may
mislead the public into believing that the lawyer is still authorized to
practice law, the Court held liable for contempt the other name partners of a
law firm who exerted no effort to remove the name of an already disbarred name
partner. Neither was there any substantial evidence in this case to demonstrate
any act of active misrepresentation on the part of Rivera that is tantamount to
aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law.
Nonetheless,
the Court remains aware of Rivera’s disregard of the present disbarment case
against him and his repeated defiance of the Court’s directives. His failure to
comply with the directives to file a Comment and the show cause Resolution, as
well as his failure to pay the fine imposed in the November 9, 2020 Resolution,
which remains unpaid, constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination or disrespect
which, alone, can merit the penalty of disbarment. On this score, the Court is
cognizant of Rivera’s previous administrative cases which shows his propensity
to disregard the CPR and violate the Lawyer’s Oath.
Under Section
42, Canon VI of the CPRA, when the respondent has been previously disbarred and
is subsequently found guilty of a new charge which deserves the penalty of
disbarment, it shall not be imposed but the penalty shall be recorded in the
respondent’s personal file in the Office of the Bar Confidant which shall be
considered should the disbarred lawyer subsequently applies for judicial
clemency.
No comments:
Post a Comment