Case No.

9 CANON 9

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA VS ATTY. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE

A.C. No. 7269 / November 23, 2011

Carpio, J:

Facts:

In a civil case before the RTC, Pasig City, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she
was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in the case, while Atty. Yolando Busmente was the counsel for the
defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. Alleging that Ulaso's deed of sale over the property subject of Civil Case No. SCA-
2481 was annulled, an ejectment case was filed before the MTC, San Juan, in which, Busmente also appeared
as a 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 would accompany Ulaso
in court, projecting herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel. He further alleged that the court orders and
notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmente's collaborating counsel but upon verification with the court and the
IBP, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer. Busmente asserted that Dela Rosa was a law graduate
and has been his paralegal assistant for a few years, but ended in 2000. He also alleged that Dela Rosa was
able to misrepresent herself as a lawyer in the case by conniving with the his former secretary, Regine
Macasieb and he also alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and his signature in the
answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged.

Issue:

Whether or not 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?

Ruling:

The court agreed with IBP’s decision in suspending Busmente from the practice of law for 6 months. It
has been established that Dela Rosa who is not a member of the Bar misrepresented herself as respondent’s
collaborating counsel. There was also sufficient evidence to prove that respondent allowed Dela Rosa to
illegally practice law, appear in court, and give legal assistance to respondent’s client. In Busmente’s
allegation that he was totally unaware of Civil Case No. 9284, it was clearly showed in Ulaso’s counter-affidavit
that the respondent was the legal counsel and that he allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso
and he also failed to impugn his signatures in other documents.

Proven that Busmente allowed Dela Rosa to appear in court and give legal assistance, the respondent
violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that “A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” 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 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. 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.