John Kevin C.

Samson

School of Law – MLQU

Case Digest

Michael Lapitan v. Atty. Elpidio Salgado

A.C. No. 12452
February 18, 2020
Complainant: Michael Lapitan
Respondent: Atty. Elpidio Salgado

NATURE OF CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a Court resolution adopting the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors imposing the
penalty of disbarment on Salgado on grounds of the criminal complaints filed by Michael Lapitan for
Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and on
respondent’s violation of the Lawyer’s Oath of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a lawyer.

FACTS

On Feb. 20, 2013, Michael Lapitan, manager of Tagaytay International Convention Center, charged Atty.
Elpidio Salgado for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

According to Mr. Lapitan, on June 2010, Atty. Salgado, who was the National Secretary General of the
National Real Estate Association, Inc., entered into a banquet event contract with TICC as venue for the
NREA sector convention scheduled on June 26, 2010. The total contract amount was P200,000. Under
the TICC’s policy, Atty. Salgado should have paid a down payment of P100,000 before the event.
However, through deceive and malicious representation, and because respondent was a lawyer, he was
able to convince Mr. Lapitan that he will pay the full amount of P200,000 after the conclusion of the
event.

However, when Mr. Lapitan collected the payment from Atty. Salgado, the latter claimed that he forgot
to bring cash and instead issued a post-dated BPI Check dated June 29, 2010, with the amount of
P210,253.90. Mr. Lapitan accepted the check, but upon presenting said check for payment on July 2,
2010, it was dishonored for the reasons “ACCOUNT CLOSED.” Several verbal and written demands were
made upon Atty. Salgado to pay, and he promised to pay on July 30, 2010. However, on Aug. 3, 2010,
Atty. Salgado did not settle the amount. He went in hiding which prompted Mr. Lapitan to report the
incident to the Tagaytay Component City Police State on Sept. 29, 2010.

On October 1, 2010, a criminal complaint for Estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code and for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 was filed by Mr. Lapitan against Atty. Salgado in the RTC and MTC of
Tagaytay respectively.

On Feb. 20, 2013, Mr. Lapitan charged Atty. Salgado for violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and on March 13, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission
on Bar Discipline acted on the complaint and issued an Order to Salgado to file his answer. On December
9, 2013, the IBP received a letter from the Federal Multi-Purpose Cooperative returning the Order of the
IBP-CBD, informing the latter that respondent moved to another address in Mindanao. On January 15,
2015, Mr. Lapitan filed his Mandatory Conference Brief with the IBP-CBD as well as a Motion to Declare
Respondent in Default. This was due to the fact that on several dates, Salgado failed to appear on
mandatory conferences set by the IBP-CBD. In an order dated Feb. 15, 216, the IBP-CBD considered the
summons on Salgado as “deemed served” and that the parties were directed to submit their position
papers within 10 days from receipt.

On March 11, 2016, Mr. Lapitan submitted his position paper. On May 2, 2017, the IBP-CBD noted the
non-appearance of Salgado and ordered both parties to submit their supplemental position papers,
which was submitted by Mr. Lapitan on May 18, 2017 that included copies of Information against
Salgado for Estafa and for violation of B.P. Blg. 22., Alias Warrant of Arrest, and Bench Warrant Arrest
issued by the RC and the MTC of Tagaytay City respectively.

On August 7, 2017, the IBP-CBD recommended the disbarment of Salgado. According to the IBP-CBD, the
records show that Salgado has evaded the processes of the IBP-CBD. The IBP-CBD held that all
opportunities were given to Salgado to answer the allegations of Mr. Lapitan against him and yet he
refused to participate in the proceedings by either being out of the country or moving to other
addresses. Accordingly, the IBP-CBD also noted the change of address of Salgado and sent several
notices to Salgado's new address. However, Salgado refused to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings.

The IBP-CBD ruled that Mr. Lapitan has proven his case by overwhelming evidence that Salgado
committed the crimes of Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Salgado committed deceit and
fraud by making it appear that he forgot to bring cash during the NREA event when truly Salgado had no
intention to pay the contracted amount. The IBP-CBD held that because Salgado remained a fugitive of
justice and disregarded the notices of the IBP-CBD, Salgado did not present any evidence to refute any
of the allegations of Mr. Lapitan. Moreover, Salgado's absence clearly shows Salgado's lack of respect for
the legal processes of courts.

In a Resolution dated 19 May 2018, the IBP Board of Governors adopted the Report and
Recommendation of the IBP-CBD in imposing the penalty of disbarment against Salgado

On 31 January 2019, the IBP-CBD transmitted the records of the case to the Court.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not Elpidio Salgado engaged in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct.
2. Whether or not Elpidio Salgado did any falsehood or consented to the doing of any in court.
3. Whether or not Elpidio Salgado observed and maintained the respect due to the Courts and to
judicial officers.
4. Whether or not Elpidio Salgado is fit to remain in the legal profession.

RULING

1. Yes. The court finds the respondent guilty of deceit. The evidence presented by Michael clearly
shows that Salgado had no intention to pay the contracted amount for the June 26, 2010 event.
Moreover, the records show that the contract amount has not been settled as of the writing of
the Court’s decision. Respondent committed deceit by pretending that he forgot to bring the
necessary cash to pay for the contracted amount when the terms of the banquet event indicate
 that the fifty percent down payment should have been made as early as upon signing the
contract. Instead, Salgado issued a worthless postdated check. Lapitan’s evidence remained
unrebutted by Salgado who refused to participate in the IBP-CBD proceedings. Consequently,
Lapitan’s evidence stands.
2. Yes. Salgado remains a fugitive from justice in both his Estafa case under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City and violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 in the Municipal Trial Court of Tagaytay City.
3. No. Salgado continued to disregard the lawful orders of the Court and has evaded both
proceedings before the trial courts and the IBP-CBD. As a member of the legal profession,
lawyers have the duty to obey the orders and processes of the Court. The conduct of Salgado
clearly demonstrates the lack of respect the Court and the Court’s lawful procedures.
4. No. Clearly, in the present case, Salgado's utmost disrespect to the Courts' proceedings coupled
with his deceitful conduct on Lapitan warrant such grave penalty. Salgado is, convincingly, unfit
to remain in the legal profession. Thus, respondent Atty. Elpidio S. Salgado, having violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility by committing unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct, and
by willfully disregarding the lawful processes of courts is DISBARRED and his name is ordered
STRICKEN OFF the Roll of Attorneys

NOTES AND COMMENTS

“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.”

Interestingly, Atty. Salgado, respondent to this case, also had a similar case dated Oct. 6, 2021. Title of
the Case is Allan v. Salgado, A.C. No. 6950 (October 6, 2021). In this case, the respondent also deceived
the complainant. The court had ordered to Salgado to pay a fine of P100,000.00 and P4,000.00 for
failure to comply with the various directives of the Court.

----- Nothing Follows -----