DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Before us is
an original petition[1] for contempt filed by petitioners
Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan against respondent Benedicto
Balajadia.
Petitioners
allege that on May 8, 2005,
respondent filed a criminal case against them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of Baguio City for
usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due
to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners from
respondent. In paragraph 5 of the
complaint-affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a practicing lawyer based
in Baguio City with
office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City.[2] However, certifications issued by the
Office of the Bar Confidant[3] and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines[4] showed that respondent has never been
admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence,
petitioners claim that respondent is liable for indirect contempt for
misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
In his
Comment,[5] respondent avers that the allegation
in paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an
honest mistake. He claims that
the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the subject complaint-affidavit
which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos complaint-affidavit.[6] It appears that Atty. Aquino had
previously filed a complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same
subject matter.
Respondent
claims that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the same secretary; one
for the May 5, 2005 parking incident at 10:00 oclock in the morning and another for the
parking incident on the same date but which occurred at 1:00 oclock in the afternoon. Respondent insists that the
complaint-affidavit regarding the 1:00
oclock parking incident correctly
alleged that he is a businessman with office address at Room B-204, 2/F Lopez
Building, Session Road, Baguio City.[7] However, the complaint-affidavit
regarding the10:00 oclock parking
incident, which is the subject of the instant petition, erroneously referred to
him as a practicing lawyer because Atty. Aquinos secretary copied verbatim
paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquinos complaint-affidavit. Hence, it was inadvertently
alleged that respondent is a practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with
office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City, which statement referred to the
person of Atty. Aquino and his law office address.
Liza
Laconsay, Atty. Aquinos secretary, executed an affidavit[8] admitting the mistake in the
preparation of the complaint-affidavit. Respondent alleged that he did not read
the complaint-affidavit because he assumed that the two complaint-affidavits
contained the same allegations with respect to his occupation and office
address. Respondent claims that
he had no intention of misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer.
In their
Reply,[9] petitioners reiterate that respondent
should be made liable for indirect contempt for having made untruthful statements
in the complaint-affidavit and that he cannot shift the blame to Atty. Aquinos
secretary.
The sole
issue for resolution is whether respondent is liable for indirect contempt.
Section
3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished
after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as
may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person
guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
x x x x
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an
officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
x x x x.
In several
cases,[10] we have ruled that the unauthorized
practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without
authority constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both. The
liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contempt and the acts are
punished because they are an affront to the dignity and authority of the court,
and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In determining liability for criminal
contempt, well-settled is the rule that intent is a necessary element, and no
one can be punished unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to
commit it.[11]
In the case
at bar, a review of the records supports respondents claim that he never
intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear inadvertence on the
part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The
affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the circumstances that gave rise to the
mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the documentary
evidence on record. Taken
together, these circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of
respondents complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.
Respondent
has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was
the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish intent as to make
him liable for indirect contempt. In
the cases where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law,
the party was guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf
of his client;[12] appearing before court hearings as an
attorney;[13] manifesting before the court that he
will practice law despite being previously denied admission to the bar;[14]or
deliberately attempting to practice law and holding out himself as an attorney
through circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so.[15]
In the case
at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney
or that he intended to practice law. Consequently,
he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to
illegally practice law.
However,
while the evidence on record failed to prove respondents deliberate intent to
misrepresent himself as an attorney and act as such without authority, he is
hereby warned to be more careful and circumspect in his future actions.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED. Respondent is WARNED to be more careful and circumspect in
his future actions.
SO ORDERED.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento