[ A.C. No. 10627 (from A.C. No.

6622), April 03, 2024 ]

RENO R. GONZALES, JR. AND ROBIN BRYAN F. CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANTS, VS.

KHO, JR., J.:

The Facts

In the July 10, 2012 Decision3 in Villatuya v. Atty. Tabalingcos, the Court disbarred Atty. Bede S.
Tabalingcos (Tabalingcos) for engaging in Bigamy.

With respect to respondents, complainants particularly alleged that Bangoy, together with
Tabalingcos, signed as counsel under the Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Memorandum8 dated October 18, 2012 filed in the BSP case, despite the
latter's disbarment. Rivera, on the other hand, signed the Notice of Change of Address9 dated
December 2, 2013 as co-counsel of Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office in the same BSP
case.10 Moreover, complainants asserted that by respondents' act of signing the pleadings on
behalf of the Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office, they misrepresented to the public that
Tabalingcos was still authorized to practice law.11

In compliance, Bangoy filed his Comment14 dated November 4, 2014 claiming that he was no
longer an associate of Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office upon the finality of Tabalingcos's
disbarment in October 2012. He explained that he left the law firm in August 2012 to establish his
own law office "because of the Decision of the [Court] x x x in July 2012 Decision"15 that disbarred
Tabalingcos. Moreover, he denied any knowledge or participation in: (a) Tabalingcos's 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.16 For his part, Rivera failed to file his comment.

Thereafter, in view of Rivera's failure to file his comment, the Court issued a Resolution20 dated
July 30, 2018 requiring him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in
contempt. This notwithstanding, Rivera still failed to file his comment and/or comply with the show
cause Resolution. Thus, the Court issued a Resolution21 dated November 9, 2020: (1) imposing
upon Rivera a fine of PHP 1,000.00 payable to the Court within 10 days from notice, or
imprisonment of five clays if the fine is not paid within said period; and (2) requiring him to comply
with the Court's directive to file his comment. To this date, Rivera has yet to comply with these
directives; thus, the fine imposed in the November 9, 2020 Resolution stands.

In a Report and Recommendation23 dated December 23, 2022, the OBC recommended that: (a)
Rivera be suspended from the practice of law for six months and pay the fine of PHP 1,000.00
imposed by the Court in the November 9, 2020 Resolution; and (b) the filing of Rivera's comment be
dispensed with and that a penalty of fine in the amount of PHP 10,000.00 be imposed in view of his
defiance of the Court's resolutions despite multiple notices. However, since Rivera has already been
previously disbarred from the practice of law,24 the penalty of suspension should be considered in
the event that he would file for reinstatement.

ISSUE: Whether grounds exist to hold respondents administratively liable in this case.

The Court’s Ruling

II.

A careful review of the records convinced the Court that Bangoy is guilty of directly or
indirectly, assisting in Tabalingcos's unauthorized practice of law.28

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.29 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,30 including the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings.31 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.32

In this case, it is undeniably clear that 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 Memorandum33 in the BSP case. Despite his denial, the records and his own admission
show that he knew about Tabalingcos's 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.34 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's 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.

III.

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. As the Court discerns, Rivera 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,44 penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen,
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:

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.51 The Court
defined gross misconduct as "any inexcusable, shameful, flagrant, or unlawful conduct on the part of
the person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or
to the right determination of a cause."52 It is a "conduct that is generally motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose."53

On this score, the Court is cognizant of Rivera's previous administrative cases which, to the
Court's mind, shows his propensity to disregard the CPR and violate the Lawyer's Oath. In Petelo v.
Rivera,56 the Court suspended Rivera from the practice of law for a period of one year for allowing a
non-lawyer to file an unauthorized civil complaint. In Reyes v. Rivera (A.C. No. 9114),57 Rivera was
disbarred, and his name was ordered stricken off the Roll of Attorneys for misrepresenting to have
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage and furnishing his client with a fake decision
despite clue receipt of professional fees. And recently in Professional Services, Inc. v. Rivera (A.C.
No. 11241), Rivera was found guilty of defrauding his client for which he was meted with the penalty
of fine in the amount of PHP 100,000.00 in view of his previous disbarment in Reyes v. Rivera.58

Under Section 42, Canon VI of the CPRA, when the respondent has been previously disbarred
2nd 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.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondents Socrates Rivera and Atty. Cres Dan
Bangoy GUILTY of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. They are
hereby meted the following penalty:

(a) As for Rivera, he is hereby FINED in the amount of PHP 50,000.00.

Further, the ORDER issued by the Court in the Resolution dated November 9, 2020
directing Rivera to PAY the fine in the amount of PHP 1,000.00 stands.

(b) As for Atty. Bangoy, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months
effective immediately upon receipt of this Decision. Further, he is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.