dela Cruz, Paulynne Joyce R.

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA v. ATTY YOLANDO BUSMENTE A.C. NOT. 7269. NOVEMBER 23,
2011

FACTS

The complainant, Atty. Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the counsel for Irene Bides,
the plaintiff in a civil case before RTC and the respondent was the counsel for the defendant Ulaso.
Complainant alleged that Ulaso’s Deed of Sale over the property subject was annulled which resulted in
the filing of an ejectment case before MTC where respondent appeared as counsel.

Another case of falsication was filed against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel, but the
complainant alleged that a certain Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting
herself as collaborating counsel as she signed the minutes of court proceedings. However, upon verification
of IBP, the complainant discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

He claimed that Dela Rosa is no longer working for him since 2000 and that Dela Rosa connived with his
former secretary Macasieb so that the notices and pleadings signed by Dela Rosa will not reach him. He
also alleged that his signature was forged.

IBP-CBD RULING:

The Commission found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer when she represented Ulaso as respondent’s
collaborating counsel. The contention of the respondent was not proven. An affidavit was submitted by one
of respondent’s staff which alleged that Macasieb failed to endorse the pleadings and notices, however,
this was rejected for lack of information. The respondent also failed to prove that his signature was forged.

The Commission recommended respondent’s suspension from practice of law for not less than five (5)
years.

IBP-BOG RULING

The Board adopted and approved the recommendation of CBD with modification reducing the period of
suspension to six months.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law
that warrants his suspension from the practice of law.

CANONS VIOLATED

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.

SC RULING

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. The Court
further ruled that 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.

Respondent alleged that Dela Rosa's 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
respondent’s staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD, respondent claimed that Macasieb resigned from his
office in 2003. Yet, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005 based on the pleadings and court
notices sent to respondent’s office.

Respondent, in his motion for reconsideration, submitted a copy to the NBI report stating that the signature
on the Answer submitted was not written in one and the same person. The report showed that respondent
only submitted the questioned signature and did not impugn his signatures in the other documents
presented bu the complainant.

It cannot be denied that the respondent was aware of the case contrary to his contention based on the joint-
counter affidavit submitted by Ulaso.

Hence, the court agreed of the IBP-CBD that there was sufficient evidence to prove that respondent was
guilty of violation of Canon 9 and the recommendation of the IBP, modifying the recommendation of the
IBP-CBD, that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for six months.