CBD Case No. 176 January 20 1!!" #a$%s& Complainant Bongalonta charged respondents Castillo and Martija, both members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which complainant might obtain. The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the egional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the !ps. "buel. !he also filed a separate ci#il action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminar$ attachment and b$ #irtue thereof, a piece of real propert$ registered in the name of the !ps. "buel under TCT %o. &'&() was attached. "tt$. Pablito Castillo was the counsel of the !ps. "buel in the aforesaid criminal and ci#il cases. *uring the pendenc$ of these cases, one +regorio ,antin filed for collection of a sum of mone$ based on a promissor$ note, also with the Pasig egional Trial Court, against the !ps. "buel. -n the said case +regorio ,antin was represented b$ "tt$. "lfonso Martija. -n this case, the !ps. "buel were declared in default for their failure to file the necessar$ responsi#e pleading and e#idence ex-parte was recei#ed against them followed b$ a judgment b$ default rendered in fa#or of +regorio ,antin. " writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same propert$ pre#iousl$ attached b$ complainant was le#ied upon. Complainant further alleged that, in all the pleadings filed in the three .&/ aforementioned cases, "tt$. Pablito Castillo and "tt$. "lfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PT and the same -BP receipt number. The -BP Board of +o#ernors dismissed the case against Martija, and recommended that "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six .0/ months for using the -BP 1fficial eceipt %o. of his co-respondent "tt$. "lfonso M. Martija. Issue& 2hether the -BP Board of +o#ernors recommendation of Castillo3s suspension be granted 'e(d& 4es. The !upreme Court agreed with the -BP Board of +o#ernors3 findings. The practice of law is not a right but a pri#ilege bestowed b$ the !tate on those who show that the$ possess, and continue to possess, the 5ualifications re5uired b$ law for the conferment of such pri#ilege. 1ne of these re5uirements is the obser#ance of honest$ and candor. Courts are entitled to expect onl$ complete candor and honest$ from the law$ers appearing and pleading before them. " law$er, on the other hand, has the fundamental dut$ to satisf$ that expectation. 6or this reason, he is re5uired to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an$ in court. epublic of the Philippines S)*R+M+ CO)RT Manila T7-* *-8-!-1% CBD Case No. 176 January 20 1!!" SALL, D. BONGALONTA complainant, #s. ATT,. *ABLITO M. CASTILLO and AL#ONSO M. MARTIJA respondents. 9 ! 1 , : T - 1 %
M+LO J.: -n a sworn letter-complaint dated 6ebruar$ ;<, ;==<, addressed to the Commission on Bar *iscipline, %ational +rie#ance -n#estigation 1ffice, -ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant !all$ Bongalonta charged Page 2 of 3 Pablito M. Castillo and "lfonso M. Martija, members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which complainant might obtain. The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the egional Trial Court of Pasig, Criminal Case %o. (0&<-<<, for estafa, against the !ps. ,uisa and !olomer "buel. !he also filed, a separate ci#il action Ci#il Case %o. <0=&), where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminar$ attachment and b$ #irtue thereof, a piece of real propert$ situated in Pasig, i>al and registered in the name of the !ps. "buel under TCT %o. &'&() was attached. "tt$. Pablito Castillo was the counsel of the !ps. "buel in the aforesaid criminal and ci#il cases. *uring the pendenc$ of these cases, one +regorio ,antin filed ci#il Case %o. <'0<? for collection of a sum of mone$ based on a promissor$ note, also with the Pasig egional Trial Court, against the !ps. "buel. -n the said case +regorio ,antin was represented b$ "tt$. "lfonso Martija. -n this case, the !ps. "buel were declared in default for their failure to file the necessar$ responsi#e pleading and e#idence ex-parte was recei#ed against them followed b$ a judgment b$ default rendered in fa#or of +regorio ,antin. " writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same propert$ pre#iousl$ attached b$ complainant was le#ied upon. -t is further alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three .&/ aforementioned cases, "tt$. Pablito Castillo and "tt$. "lfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PT and the same -BP receipt number to wit@ Permanent ,ight Center, %o. (, A;st "#enue, Cubao, Bue>on Cit$, PT %o. 0A=);; dated ;;-<-'= -BP %o. A)0(AA dated ;-;A-''. Thus, complainant concluded that ci#il Case %o. <'0<? filed b$ +regorio ,antin was merel$ a part of the scheme of the !ps. "buel to frustrate the satisfaction of the mone$ judgment which complainant might obtain in Ci#il Case %o. <0=&). "fter hearing, the -BP Board of +o#ernors issued it esolution with the following findings and recommendations: "mong the se#eral documentar$ exhibits submitted b$ Bongalonta and attached to the records is a xerox cop$ of TCT %o. &'&(), which Bongalonta and the respondents admitted to be a faithful reproduction of the original. "nd it clearl$ appears under the Memorandum of 9ncumbrances on aid TCT that the %otice of ,e#$ in fa#or of Bongalonta and her husband was registered and annotated in said title of 6ebruar$ (, ;='=, whereas, that in fa#or of +regorio ,antin, on 1ctober ;', ;='=. %eedless to state, the notice of le#$ in fa#or of Bongalonta and her husband is a superior lien on the said registered propert$ of the "buel spouses o#er that of +regorio ,antin. Conse5uentl$, the charge against the two respondents .i.e. representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which Bongalonta and her husband might obtain against the "buel spouses/ has no leg to stand on. 7owe#er, as to the fact that indeed the two respondents placed in their appearances and in their pleadings the same -BP %o. @A)0(AA dated ;-;A-''@, respondent "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo deser#es to be !:!P9%*9* for using, apparentl$ thru his negligence, the -BP official receipt number of respondent "tt$. "lfonso M. Martija. "ccording to the records of the -BP %ational 1ffice, "tt$. Castillo paid P;,?)?.?? as his delin5uent and current membership dues, on 6ebruar$ A?, ;==?, under -BP 1.. %o. A=??<&', after Bongalonta filed her complaint with the -BP Committee on Bar *iscipline. The explanation of "tt$. CastilloCs Cashier-!ecretar$ b$ the name of 9ster 6raginal who alleged in her affida#it dated March ), ;==&, that it was all her fault in placing the -BP official receipt number pertaining to "tt$. "lfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings "tt$. Castillo and in failing to pa$ in due time the -BP Page 3 of 3 membership dues of her emplo$er, deser#es scant consideration, for it is the bounded dut$ and obligation of e#er$ law$er to see to it that he pa$s his -BP membership dues on time, especiall$ when he practices before the courts, as re5uired b$ the !upreme Court. 2799619, it is respectfull$ recommended that "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo be !:!P9%*9* from the practice of law for a period of six .0/ months for using the -BP 1fficial eceipt %o. of his co-respondent "tt$. "lfonso M. Martija. The complaint against "tt$. Martija is hereb$ *-!M-!!9* for lacD of e#idence. .pp. A-), esolution/ The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. -t is well to stress again that the practice of law is not a right but a pri#ilege bestowed b$ the !tate on those who show that the$ possess, and continue to possess, the 5ualifications re5uired b$ law for the conferment of such pri#ilege. 1ne of these re5uirements is the obser#ance of honest$ and candor. Courts are entitled to expect onl$ complete candor and honest$ from the law$ers appearing and pleading before them. " law$er, on the other hand, has the fundamental dut$ to satisf$ that expectation. for this reason, he is re5uired to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an$ in court. 2799619, finding respondent "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo guilt$ committing a falsehood in #iolation of his law$erCs oath and of the Code of Professional esponsibilit$, the Court esol#ed to !:!P9%* him from the practice of law for a period of six .0/ months, with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more se#ere penalt$. " cop$ of the esolution shall be spread on the personal record of respondent in the 1ffice of the Bar Confidant. !1 1*99*. Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Vitug, JJ., concur.