Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan, and Pagayokan vs.

Balajadia
G.R. 169517 (March 14, 2006)

Topic: INDIRECT COMPTEMPT for assuming to be an attorney

Facts:

• Balajadia filed a criminal case against Tan and Pagayokan in the City Prosecutor of Baguio for 1) usurpation of authority 2) grave
coercion 3) violation of city tax ordinance for allegedly illegally collecting parking fees from respondent Balajadia.

• In his complaint-affidavit, Balajadia stated 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”.

• Tan and Pagayokan checked with the Office of the Bar Confidant and IBP and certifications were issued showing that Balajadia
was has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence they filed a petition for contempt against Balajadia arguing that the
latter is guilty of indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.

• In his comment, Balajadia avers that:ß

1. That the secretary of a certain Atty. Paterno Aquino, named Liza Laconsay, prepared two complaint-affidavits against Tan
and Pagayokan on the same subject matter: one for Atty. Paterno Aquino and another one for Balajadia.

2. Liza copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit and erronoeusly failing to omit the statement
referring to Balajadia a practising lawyer. Supposedly, it should be that he is a “businessman with office address at Room
B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City” instead of a “practicing lawyer with office address at Room B-207,
2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City”.

3. Liza executed an affidavit admitting the mistake.

4. Balajadia claims he had no intention to misrepresent himself as a lawyer. That he did not read the complaint-affidavit
because he assumed the two complaint-affidavits contained the correct statements as to his occupation and address.

Issue: Whether or not Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt

Ruling:

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:
xxxx
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;

• As to punishment - This is punished by fine or imprisonment or both.

• As to the liability - The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under such section 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.

• Element - 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.

In this case, the records as well as the circumstances stated in the affidavit of Liza shows that Balajdia never intended to project
himself as a lawyer. This by itself cannot establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt.

There should be an overt act to make a party liable for unauthorized practice of law like:

1. Signing the pleadings on behalf of client

2. Court appearance as a lawyer

3. Deliberately practicing law with full knowledge that he has no license

In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that Balajadia acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law.

Petition is dismissed.