LAPITAN v.

SALGADO

A.C. No. 12452 (February 18, 2020)

NATURE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

For final action of the Supreme Court in this administrative case is the Resolution of the IBP
Board of Governors adopting the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP Committee on
Bar Discipline for the disbarment of Atty. Salgado for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1,
Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FACTS
In June 2010, Lapitan, General Manager of Tagaytay International Convention Center (TICC),
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Salgado, the National Secretary General of the
Nation and Real Estate Association, Inc. (NRE), for violations of the Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1,
Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of Canon 1, Canon 7, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
He alleged that:
1. Atty. Salgado entered into a banquet event contract with TICC for Php200,000.00, which
is payable in two equal installments during contract signing and upon the conclusion of
event, respectively. However, Atty Salgado, through deceit and false representations,
was able to convince him to pay after the conclusion of the event;
2. After the event, he attempted to collect the payment but Atty. Salgado claimed that he
forgot to bring cash and instead issued a post-dated check for P210,253.90 that was
dishonored for being drawn against a closed account;
3. Despite numerous demands, Atty. Salgado did not pay his obligation and even went into
hiding to avoid liability.
4. This prompted Lapitan to file a criminal complaint for Estafa under Art 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Regional Trial
Court Tagaytay and Municipal Trial Court Tagaytay, respectively.
Acting on the complaint, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP CPD) issued an order to Atty, Salgado to file his answer but the latter did not participate in
the proceedings. Consequently, the IBP-CBD ruled that Lapitan has proven his case by
overwhelming evidence that Atty. Salgado committed the crimes of Estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.  Moreover, Atty. Salgado's absence clearly shows his lack of respect for the
legal processes of courts. Hence, they recommend that Salgado be disbarred.

ISSUE
1. Whether or not Atty. Salgado is guilty for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility?
2. Whether or not the penalty of disbarment is proper?
RULING
 1. Yes.
Pursuant to Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, Rule 7.03 of Canon 7, and Canon 11 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath, as member of the Bar, Atty. Salgado
should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
In the present case, Atty. Salgado committed deceit by making it appear that he forgot to
bring with him the necessary cash to pay for the contracted amount and instead, issued a
post-dated check, which he knew will bounced as it was drawn against a closed account.
This signifies that Atty. Salgado had no intention to pay his obligations.
Canon 11 reads: "A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts
and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others." 
In the case at bar, Atty. Salgado has evaded the arrest orders of the trial courts and ignored
the IBP-CBD orders and proceedings. By doing so, he, thus, violated his oath as a lawyer.
2. Yes.
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138,  a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from
his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. 
Clearly, Atty. Salgado's utmost disrespect to the Courts' proceedings coupled with his
deceitful conduct on Lapitan warrant such grave penalty. Atty. Salgado is, convincingly, unfit
to remain in the legal profession.

PERSONAL NOTES AND COMMENTS

1. The case was transmitted to the SC for final action because the recommended penalty
was disbarment. (Section 12 b. Rule 139-B, Rules of Court.) 
2. Willful disobedience to lawful orders of a superior court is a ground for disbarment under
Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court. The RTC is considered a superior court, but the
MTC and the IBP-CBD are not.
3. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege clothed with public
interest. To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers of the Court, lawyers must
adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness and maintain the highest degree of
morality.