KELD STEMMERIK, A.C. No.

8010
represented by ATTYS.
HERMINIO A. LIWANAG and
WINSTON P.L. ESGUERRA,
Complainant,
-versusVELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA and
ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS,
Respondent.
June 16, 2009
x--------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION
Per Curiam:
Complainant Keld Stemmerik is a citizen and resident of Denmark. In one of his trips to the
Philippines, he was introduced to respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas. That was his misfortune.
In one visit to the Philippines, complainant marveled at the beauty of the country and
expressed his interest in acquiring real property in the Philippines. He consulted respondent who
advised him that he could legally acquire and own real property in the Philippines. Respondent
even suggested an 86,998 sq.m. property in Quarry, Agusuin, Cawag, Subic, Zambales with the
assurance that the property was alienable.
Trusting respondent, complainant agreed to purchase the property through respondent as
his representative or attorney-in-fact. Complainant also engaged the services of respondent for
the preparation of the necessary documents. For this purpose, respondent demanded and
received a P400,000 fee.
Confident that respondent would faithfully carry out his task, complainant returned to Denmark,
entrusting the processing of the necessary paperwork to respondent.

Thereafter, respondent prepared a contract to sell the property between complainant, represented
by respondent, and a certain Bonifacio de Mesa, the purported owner of the property.
[1]
Subsequently, respondent prepared and notarized a deed of sale in which de Mesa sold and
conveyed the property to a certain Ailyn Gonzales for P3.8 million.[2]Respondent also drafted
and notarized an agreement between complainant and Gonzales stating that it was complainant
who provided the funds for the purchase of the property.[3] Complainant then gave respondent
the full amount of the purchase price (P3.8 million) for which respondent issued an
acknowledgment receipt.[4]
After the various contracts and agreements were executed, complainant tried to get in touch with
respondent to inquire about when the property could be registered in his name. However,
respondent suddenly became scarce and refused to answer complainants calls and e-mail
messages.
When complainant visited the Philippines again in January 2005, he engaged the services of the
Jimenez Gonzales Liwanag Bello Valdez Caluya & Fernandez Law Office to ascertain the status
of the property he supposedly bought. He was devastated to learn that aliens could not own land
under Philippine laws. Moreover, verification at the Community Environment & Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in
Olongapo City revealed that the property was inalienable as it was situated within the former US
Military Reservation.[5] The CENRO also stated that the property was not subject to disposition
or acquisition under Republic Act No. 141.[6]
Thereafter, complainant, through his attorneys-in-fact,[7] exerted diligent efforts to locate
respondent for purposes of holding him accountable for his fraudulent acts. Inquiry with the
Olongapo Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) disclosed that respondent was
in arrears in his annual dues and that he had already abandoned his law office in Olongapo City.
[8]
Search of court records of cases handled by respondent only yielded his abandoned office
address in Olongapo City.
Complainant filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent in the Commission on
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP.[9] He deplored respondents acts of serious misconduct. In
particular, he sought the expulsion of respondent from the legal profession for gravely
misrepresenting that a foreigner could legally acquire land in the Philippines and for maliciously
absconding with complainants P3.8 million.[10]
Respondent failed to file his answer and position paper despite service of notice at his last
known address. Neither did he appear in the scheduled mandatory conference. In this
connection, the CBD found that respondent abandoned his law practice in Olongapo City after
his transaction with complainant and that he did not see it fit to contest the charges against him.
[11]

The CBD ruled that respondent used his position as a lawyer to mislead complainant on the
matter of land ownership by a foreigner.[12] He even went through the motion of preparing
falsified and fictitious contracts, deeds and agreements. And for all these shameless acts, he
collected P400,000 from complainant. Worse, he pocketed the P3.8 million and absconded with
it.[13]

In this connection, lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP
National Office or their respective chapters[19] of any change in office or residential address and
other contact details.[20] In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office
or residential address appearing in the records of the IBP National Office shall constitute
sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him.

The CBD found respondent to be nothing more than an embezzler who misused his
professional status as an attorney as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with
complainants money.[14] Respondent was dishonest and deceitful. He abused the trust and
confidence reposed by complainant in him. The CBD recommended the disbarment of
respondent.[15]

RESPONDENTS ADMINISTRATIVE
INFRACTIONS
AND HIS LIABILITY THEREFOR

The Board of Governors of the IBP adopted the findings and recommendation of the CBD with
the modification that respondent was further required to return the amount of P4.2 million to
respondent.[16]

Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for the
law and uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law, they must
ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of oppression or
deception.

We agree with the IBP.

SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE OF
THE DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

Respondent has been weighed by the exacting standards of the legal profession and has
been found wanting.
Respondent committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyer. He is also guilty of culpable
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the code of ethics of the legal profession.

We shall first address a threshold issue: was respondent properly given notice of the disbarment
proceedings against him? Yes.

All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.
[21]
That oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should
be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.[22]

The respondent did not file any answer or position paper, nor did he appear during the
scheduled mandatory conference. Respondent in fact abandoned his last known address, his law
office in Olongapo City, after he committed the embezzlement.

Lawyers are servants of the law[23] and the law is their master. They should not simply
obey the laws, they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by serving as
exemplars worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:

Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can neither
defeat this Courts jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade administrative liability
by the mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of the complaint and other orders
and processes on respondents office was sufficient notice to him.

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.

Indeed, since he himself rendered the service of notice on him impossible, the notice
requirement cannot apply to him and he is thus considered to have waived it. The law does not
require that the impossible be done. Nemo tenetur ad impossibile.[17] The law obliges no one to
perform an impossibility. Laws and rules must be interpreted in a way that they are in
accordance with logic, common sense, reason and practicality.[18]

Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be
transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

This Court has interpreted this provision, as early as the 1947 case Krivenko v. Register
of Deeds,[24] to mean that under the Constitution, aliens may not acquire private or agricultural
lands, including residential lands. The provision is a declaration of imperative constitutional
policy.[25]
Respondent, in giving advice that directly contradicted a fundamental constitutional
policy, showed disrespect for the Constitution and gross ignorance of basic law. Worse, he
prepared spurious documents that he knew were void and illegal.
By making it appear that de Mesa undertook to sell the property to complainant and that
de Mesa thereafter sold the property to Gonzales who made the purchase for and in behalf of
complainant, he falsified public documents and knowingly violated the Anti-Dummy Law.[26]
Respondents misconduct did not end there. By advising complainant that a foreigner
could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that
the property was alienable, respondent deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not
give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived
complainant and misled him into parting with P400,000 for services that were both illegal and
unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the P3.8 million given by
complainant for the purchase of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was
criminal in nature.
Respondent spun an intricate web of lies. In the process, he committed unethical act
after unethical act, wantonly violating laws and professional standards.
For all this, respondent violated not only the lawyers oath and Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He also transgressed the following provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02. A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of
the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND
SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND

LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS
CLIENT.
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
POSSESSION.
CANON 17 A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS
CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM. (emphasis supplied)
A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal
knowledge to further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present
danger to the rule of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar
and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything that the
legal profession stands for.
It is respondent and his kind that give lawyering a bad name and make laymen support
Dick the Butchers call, Kill all lawyers![27] A disgrace to their professional brethren, they must be
purged from the bar.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Leonuel N. Mas is hereby DISBARRED. The Clerk
of Court is directed to immediately strike out the name of respondent from the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to return to complainant Keld Stemmerik the total
amount of P4.2 million with interest at 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of this
resolution until full payment. Respondent is further DIRECTED to submit to the Court proof of
payment of the amount within ten days from payment.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) is ORDERED to locate Atty. Mas and file
the appropriate criminal charges against him. The NBI is further DIRECTED to regularly report
the progress of its action in this case to this Court through the Bar Confidant.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant who shall forthwith record
it in the personal file of respondent, the Court Administrator who shall inform all courts of the
Philippines, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines which shall disseminate copies to all its
chapters and members and all administrative and quasi-judicial agencies of the Republic of the
Philippines.

SO ORDERED.
RE: SC DECISION DATED A.C. No. 7940
MAY 20, 2008 IN G.R. NO. 161455
UNDER RULE 139-B OF THE
RULES OF COURT,
- versus ATTY. RODOLFO D. PACTOLIN,
Respondent. Promulgated:
April 24, 2012
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This case resolves the question of whether or not the conviction of a lawyer for a crime
involving moral turpitude constitutes sufficient ground for his disbarment from the practice of
law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Aggrieved, Ferraren filed with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case 25665 a complaint
against Atty. Pactolin for falsification of public document.[1] On November 12, 2003 the
Sandiganbayan found Atty. Pactolin guilty of falsification under Article 172 and sentenced him
to the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional as
minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision correccional as maximum, to suffer all the
accessory penalties of prision correccional, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Atty. Pactolin appealed to this Court but on May 20, 2008 it affirmed his conviction.
Since the Court treated the matter as an administrative complaint against him as well under
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, it referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for appropriate action.
[2]

Because complainant Ferraren neither appeared nor submitted any pleading during the
administrative proceedings before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, on October 9, 2010
the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution XIX-2010-632, adopting and approving the
Investigating Commissioners Report and Recommendation that the case against Atty. Pactolin be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
The Issue Presented
The only issue presented in this case is whether or not Atty. Pactolin should be disbarred
after conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification.

The Facts and the Case

The Courts Ruling
In May 1996, Elmer Abastillas, the playing coach of the Ozamis City volleyball team,
wrote Mayor Benjamin A. Fuentes of Ozamis City, requesting financial assistance for his
team. Mayor Fuentes approved the request and sent Abastillas letter to the City Treasurer for
processing. Mayor Fuentes also designated Mario R. Ferraren, a city council member, as Officerin-Charge (OIC) of the city while Mayor Fuentes was away. Abastillas eventually got
the P10,000.00 assistance for his volleyball team.

In his pleadings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Pactolin reiterated the
defenses he raised before the Sandiganbayan and this Court in the falsification case. He claims
that the Court glossed over the facts, that its decision and referral to the IBP was factually
infirmed[3] and contained factual exaggerations and patently erroneous observation,[4] and was
too adventurous.[5]

Meanwhile, respondent lawyer, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, then

a Sangguniang Panlalawigan member of Misamis Occidental, got a photocopy of Abastillas
letter and, using it, filed on June 24, 1996 a complaint with the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman-Mindanao against Ferraren for alleged illegal disbursement of P10,000.00 in public
funds. Atty. Pactolin attached to the complaint a copy of what he claimed was a falsified letter of
Abastillas, which showed that it was Ferraren, not Mayor Fuentes, who approved the
disbursement.

To recapitulate, this Court upheld the finding of the Sandiganbayan that the copy of
Abastillas letter which Atty. Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious. Given the clear
absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding his possession and use of the falsified Abastillas
letter, this Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not err in concluding that it was Atty. Pactolin
who falsified the letter. This Court relied on the settled rule that in the absence of satisfactory
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and
therefore guilty of falsification.[6]

This Courts decision in said falsification case had long become final and
executory. In In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo,[7] the Court held that in disbarment cases, it is
no longer called upon to review the judgment of conviction which has become final. The review
of the conviction no longer rests upon this Court.

personal records and furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.

Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or
suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office;
(4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation
of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8)
corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority so to do.
This Court has ruled that the crime of falsification of public document is contrary to
justice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral turpitude.[8] Moral turpitude
includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. It
involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.
[9]

Having said that, what penalty should be imposed then on Atty. Pactolin?
As a rule, this Court exercises the power to disbar with great caution. Being the most
severe form of disciplinary sanction, it is imposed only for the most imperative reasons and in
clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and a member of the bar.[10] Yet this Court has also consistently pronounced that
disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving
moral turpitude.[11]
Here, Atty. Pactolins disbarment is warranted. The Sandiganbayan has confirmed that
although his culpability for falsification has been indubitably established, he has not yet served
his sentence. His conduct only exacerbates his offense and shows that he falls short of the
exacting standards expected of him as a vanguard of the legal profession.[12]
This Court once again reminds all lawyers that they, of all classes and professions, are
most sacredly bound to uphold the law.[13] The privilege to practice law is bestowed only upon
individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. As
such, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients
and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[14]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin is hereby DISBARRED and his
name REMOVED from the Rolls of Attorney. Let a copy of this decision be attached to his

TERESITA B. ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA, Respondent.

R ES O LUTIO N
LEONEN, J.:
For resolution is an administrative complaint for disbarment or suspension filed by complainant
Teresita B. Enriquez against Atty. Trina De Vera. We resolve whether Atty. Trina De Vera
committed serious misconduct and should be held administratively liable for the issuance and
dishonor of several post-dated checks.
Teresita B. Enriquez (Teresita) filed her Complaint-Affidavit1 on June 26, 2009 before this court.
The Complaint prayed for Atty. Trina De Vera's (Atty. De Vera) disbarment or suspension in
relation to the latter's issuance of worthless checks and non-payment of a loan. 2cralawred
According to Teresita, she is a businesswoman involved in building cell site towers. She is
acquainted with Atty. De Vera through the business by subcontracting the cell site acquisition to
Atty. De Vera.3cralawred
Sometime in April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed P500,000.00 from Teresita with interest of
P20,000.00 per month until fully paid.4 Hbwever, Teresita did not have the full amount. Atty. De
Vera persuaded her to borrow the amount from a common friend, Mary Jane D. Luzon (Mary
Jane), by mortgaging her property located in Lucena City.5 Atty. De Vera issued IBank6 Check
No. 310571 post-dated July 31, 2006 for P500,000.00. Atty. De Vera also issued at least two
more checks to cover the interest agreed upon.7cralawred
Teresita alleges that in June 2006, Atty. De Vera obtained another loan from Teresita's sister in
the amount of P100,000.00. Teresita guaranteed the loan. Atty.De Vera issued IBank Check No.
317689 post-dated July 14, 2006 for P100,000.00 to Teresita. Teresita claimed that she paid her
sister the amount borrowed by Atty. De Vera.8cralawred
Upon maturity of the checks, Teresita presented the checks for payment. However, the checks
"bounced" for being drawn against insufficient funds. Teresita attempted to encash the checks
for a second time. However, the checks were dishonored because the account was
closed.9cralawred
Teresita demanded payment from Atty. De Vera. However, she failed to settle her obligations,
prompting Teresita to file complaints against Atty. De Vera for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 and estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.10cralawred

The Quezon City Prosecutor's Office issued the Resolution dated March 4, 2008 finding
probable cause for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code. On the same day, an Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(d) of the Revised Penal Code was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued by the trial court. 11cralawred
In her administrative complaint, Teresita prays that Atty. De Vera be disbarred or suspended for
violation of her oath under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. 12cralawred
On July 29, 2009, this court required Atty. De Vera to comment on the Complaint. 13cralawred
Atty. De Vera filed her Answer14 dated June 24, 2010. She presented her version of the facts.
According to Atty. De Vera, in February 2006, Teresita awarded a Site Acquisition and
Permitting Project to Atty. De Vera's group. The project involved twenty-nine (29) Globe'
Telecom sites across Northern and Southern Luzon.15cralawred
Atty. De Vera alleges that Teresita could not pay the required 15% downpayment per site. Thus,
they agreed that Atty. De Vera would advance the costs for mobilization and survey, while
Teresita would cover the costs for application of building permits. Teresita, thus, owed her
P195,000.00 per site.16cralawred
Teresita had not paid Atty. De Vera the downpayment by March 2006.17 At that time, Teresita
had to deliver at least five (5) cell sites to Globe Telecom.18 However, Teresita did not have the
funds required for the application of building permits that costs around P10,000.00 for each cell
site.19cralawred
Teresita was constrained to borrow P500,000.00 from Mary Jane. Subsequently, Teresita
approached Atty. De Vera and asked that the latter lend Teresita checks to guaranty the loan. The
main reason Teresita gave was that she had been frequently arguing with her husband regarding
the loan.20cralawred
Atty. De Vera denies the P100,000.00 loan from Teresita's sister.21 She only lent Teresita another
check as "additional guaranty for the five sites[.]" 22cralawred
Atty. De Vera argues that the checks were not drawn, issued, and delivered to Teresita for value.
The checks were not meant to be deposited.23cralawred
Furthermore, Atty. De Vera claims that the present administrative case is baseless. She points out
that the proceedings before the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office were under reinvestigation since
she' did not have the opportunity to answer the criminal complaint.24cralawred
Moreover, "nowhere in both the affidavit-complaint for Estafa/BP 22 and the administrative
complaint was there any proof that . . . [Atty. De Vera] had in any manner breached her oath as a

lawyer [or] abused her position against the interests of the complainant."25cralawred
Atty. De Vera alleges that she was the one who was abused.26 In addition, "[a] 11 the bare
allegations that [Atty. De Vera] was the one who enticed [Teresita] to mortgage her property and
that the checks issued by [Atty. De Vera] will be honored upon maturity do not constitute
deceitful conduct on the part of [Atty. De Vera]."27cralawred
On August 25, 2010, this court noted Atty. De Vera's Answer and referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for "investigation, report and recommendation or decision
within ninety (90) days from receipt of [the] records[.]"28cralawred
The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines scheduled mandatory
conferences where the parties defined the issues, stipulated on facts, and marked
exhibits.29 Upon the termination of the mandatory conferences, the parties were "directed to
submit their respective verified position papers within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt
of the Order."30.
Both parties failed to file their position papers.31cralawred
The Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines found Atty. De Vera administratively liable for serious misconduct and
recommended the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the practice of law.32 The
Investigating Commissioner ruled:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Respondent's assertion that the checks she issued to complainant were not security for the loans
she obtained but mere guaranty checks and not for deposit deserves no credence; it is contrary to
the ordinary experience.
...
. . . [T]he pieces of evidenc[e] on reco[r]d substantially shows [sic] that indeed respondent
incurred monetary obligations from complainant, and she issued postdated checks to 'the latter as
security for the payment of the loans.
Assuming . . . that respondent's version of facts were [sic] true, she is still guilty of serious
misconduct.
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing . . .
worthless check[s]; that is, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. The law
is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
under pain of penal sanctions, the making and circulation of worthless checks. . . . A check
issued as an evidence of debt though not intended to be presented for payment has the
same effect as an ordinary check and would fall within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22.
As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B.P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in

violation of the provisions of the law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct.

...
[A] lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his profession, but
also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity[.]33 (Citation
omitted)cralawlawlibrary
In issuing the worthless checks, Atty. De Vera did not only violate the law, but she also broke her
oath as a lawyer and transgressed the Canons in the Code of Professional Responsibility.34 The
Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera violated the following
provisions:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Cannon [sic] 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for the law and legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.35cralawlawlibrary
The dispositive portion of the Investigating Commissioner's Report and
Recommendation36 reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct and it is
recommended that she be suspended for a period of one (1) year from the practice of
law.37cralawred
cralawlawlibrary
In the Notice of Resolution No. XX-2013-61238 dated May 11, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors resolved to adopt the Investigating Commissioner's
recommendation:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby unanimously ADOPTED and
APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the aboveentitled 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 Respondent violated the B.P. 22 by issuing a worthless check, the Attorney's Oath and
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Atty.
Trina De Vera is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.39 (Emphasis in
the original)cralawlawlibrary

Teresita filed the Partial Motion for Reconsideration40 dated September 17, 2013 of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors' Resolution. Atty. De Vera filed the Motion
for Reconsideration41dated September 21, 2013.
In the Notice of Resolution No. XXI-2014-24142 dated May 3, 2014, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Board of Governors denied the parties' respective
motions:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RESOLVED to DENY respective Motions for Reconsideration of Complainant and Respondent,
there being no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the resolution
.subject of the motion, they being a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been
threshed out and taken into consideration. Moreover, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration
was filed out of time pursuant to his Motion for Extension of Time which is a prohibited
pleading under Rule 139-B of the Rules and resorted to by lawyers at times to delay proceeding.
Thus, Resolution No. XX-2013-612 dated May 11, 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED.43 (Emphasis in
the original)
cralawlawlibrary
The main issue is whether Atty. De Vera committed serious misconduct and should be held
administratively liable for the issuance and dishonor of worthless checks in violation of the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
After considering the parties' arguments and the records of this case, we resolve to adopt and
approve the recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors.
Atty. De Vera tries to free herself from liability by arguing that she did not incur the loans
alleged by Teresita, and the checks were issued merely as a guaranty and not as payment for the
loan. She also raises the prematurity of the administrative complaint in view of the pendency of
the criminal proceedings considering that "the allegations of deceitful conduct [are] intimately
intertwined with the criminal acts complained of."44cralawred
This is not a case of first impression. This court has ruled that the lawyer's act of issuing
worthless checks, punishable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, constitutes serious misconduct.
In De Jesus v. Collado,45 this court found respondent lawyer guilty of serious misconduct for
issuing post-dated checks that were dishonored upon presentment for
payment:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the case at bar, no conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 has as yet been obtained against
respondent Collado.. We do not, however, believe that conviction of the criminal charges raised
against her is essential, so far as either the administrative or civil service case or the
disbarment charge against her is concerned. Since she had admitted issuing the checks when
she did not have enough money in her bank account to cover the total amount thereof, it cannot
be gainsaid that the acts with which she was charged would constitute a crime penalized by B.P.
Blg. 22. We consider that issuance of checks in violation of the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22

constitutes serious misconduct on the part of a member of the Bar.46 (Emphasis supplied, citation
omitted)cralawlawlibrary
Misconduct involves "wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment"; 47 it is serious or
gross when it is flagrant.48cralawred
We recently reiterated the purpose and nature of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in relation to an
administrative case against a member of the bar:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the banking
system and the legitimate public checking account users. The gravamen of the offense defined
and punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 . . . is the act of making and issuing a worthless check,
or any check that is dishonored upon its presentment for payment and putting it in circulation;
the law is designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious and pernicious practice of
issuing checks with insufficient funds, or with no credit, because the practice is deemed a public
nuisance, a crime against public order to be abated.

cralawlawlibrary
The Investigating Commissioner found that Atty. De Vera incurred monetary obligations from
Teresita. Atty. De Vera admitted issuing the checks to Teresita. She refused to answer for her
liabilities by denying the existence of the loan and claiming that the checks were mere "show
checks."51 However, she failed to present evidence to prove those allegations.
The Decision52 wherein the trial court found Teresita civilly liable to Mary Jane for
P540,000.00,53 and on which Atty. De Vera relies upon, is not sufficient evidence to hold that
there was no separate transaction between Teresita and Atty. De Vera. The Decision involved the
post-dated checks issued by Teresita to Mary Jane only.54 Mary Jane merely claimed that she had
no personal knowledge of any transaction between Teresita and Atty. De Vera.55cralawred

...

The Investigating Commissioner correctly pointed out that Atty. De Vera's allegation of
"lending" her checks to Teresita is contrary to ordinary human experience. As a lawyer, Atty. De
Vera is presumed to know the consequences of her acts. She issued several post-dated checks for
value that were dishonored upon presentation for payment.

Being a lawyer, [respondent] was well aware of the objectives and coverage of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22. If he did not, he was nonetheless presumed to know them, for. the law was penal in
character and application. His issuance of the unfunded check involved herein knowingly
violated Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and exhibited his indifference towards the pernicious effect of
his illegal act to public interest and public order. He thereby swept aside his Lawyer's Oath that
enjoined him to support the Constitution and obey the laws.49 (Citations
omitted)cralawlawlibrary

Membership in the bar requires a high degree of fidelity to the laws whether in a private or
professional capacity. "Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his
reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public's faith in the Legal Profession as a
whole."56 A lawyer "may be removed or otherwise disciplined 'not only for malpractice and
dishonesty in his profession, but also for gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties, which showed him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his
license and the law confer to him.'"57cralawred

A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a
public or private capacity.50 The Code of Professional Responsibility
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Trina De Vera is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one (1) year. Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in Atty. De Vera's personal record with the
Office of the Bar Confidant, and a copy be served to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts in the land.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 -

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

....
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY- AND
DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
....
Rule 7.03 -

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

SO ORDERED.

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

The Antecedent Facts

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, A.C. No. 7269

Complainant,
- versus ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, Promulgated:
Respondent. November 23, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

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). NoeLacsamana alleged that Ulasos deed of sale over the property subject of Civil Case No. SCA2481 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 Busmentes 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 Busmentes collaborating counsel. NoeLacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

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

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

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 Busmentescollaborating
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 Busmentes designated office address. The IBP-CBD stated
that Busmentes only excuse was that Dela Rosa connived with his former secretary Macasieb so
that the notices and pleadings would not reach him.

Busmente filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted a report4 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 Busmentes 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 IBP-CBD rejected the affidavit submitted by Judy M. Ortalez (Ortalez), Busmentes staff,
alleging Macasiebs failure to endorse pleadings and notices of Civil Case No. 9284 to Busmente.
The IBP-CBD noted that Ortalez did not exactly refer to Ulasos 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 Busmentes 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 Busmentes allegation that Dela Rosa was able to
illegally practice law using his office address without his knowledge and only due to Dela Rosas
connivance with Macasieb. As regards Busmentesallegation 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 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 IBP-CBD recommended Busmentes 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 Busmentes suspension to six months.

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 ones 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

2005. Pleadings and court notices were still sent to Busmentes office until 2005. The IBP-CBD
noted that Dela Rosas practice should have ended in 2003 when Macasieb left.

The Court explained:

We agree. Busmentes 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 Busmentes claim that Macasieb already resigned, if DelaRosa had no access to the
files in Busmentes office.

The lawyers 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 Busmentes 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 Rosas 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 Busmentes staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD, Busmente claimed
that Macasieb resigned from his office in 2003. Yet, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulasountil

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. Busmentes allegation contradicted the Joint Counter-Affidavit9 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 Ejectmentdocketed 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;

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.

2. There must be wrongful intent to

injure a 3rd party;
3. Knowledge that the facts narrated
by him are absolutely false;

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Busmentes personal record in the Office of the
Bar Confidant. 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.