RODOLFO A ESPINOSA vs ATTY JULIETA A OMA\u00d1A AC No 9081 659 SCRA

Rodolfo a espinosa vs atty julieta a omaña ac no

This preview shows page 21 - 23 out of 34 pages.

RODOLFO A. ESPINOSA vs. ATTY. JULIETA A. OMAÑA A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 1 FACTS : Atty. Omaña prepared and notarized a document entitled “Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay of Espinosa and his wife Elena and that they could legally live separately and dissolved their marriage . ISSUE : Whether Atty. Omaña’s act of preparing and notarizing void document warrant disciplining measures against her . HELD : YES . A notary public should not facilitate the disintegration of marriage and family by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extrajudicially dissolving the conjugal partnership . CANON 9 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW RULE 9.01 RODRIGO TAPAY vs. ATTY. CHARLIE L. BANCOLO A.C. No. 9604, March 20, 2013, 674 SCRA 1 FACTS : A complaint for usurpation of authority , falsification of public document and graft and corrupt practices was filed against Tapay before the Office of the Ombudsman by a certain Divinagracia . Atty. Bancolo denied that he represented Divinagracia since he had to meet him yet in person and his signature appearing in the complaint against Tapay was signed by his secretary in his law office . 21
Image of page 21
ISSUE : Whether Atty. Bancolo violated Canon 9 and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional responsibility . HELD : YES . With Atty. Bancolo’s admission that the complaint he filed against Tapay before the Office of the Ombudsman was signed in his name by a secretary of his law office is clearly a violation of Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides in Canon 9 that “A Lawyer Shall Not , Directly or Indirectly , Assist in the Unauthorized Practice of Law and Rule 9.01 which states that “a lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing .” The lawyer’s duty to prevent or at the very least not to assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy . Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individual found only qualified in education and character . The permissive right conferred in the law is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct . The purpose is to protect the public , the court , the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice of law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court . Undoubtedly , Atty. Bancolo violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by allowing a non-lawyer to affix his signature to a pleading . RULE 9.02 MIGUEL VILLATUYA vs. ATTY. BEDE S. TABALINGCOS A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012, 676 SCRA 37 FACTS : Miguel was employed by Atty. Bede as a financial consultant to assist in the technical and financial matter in the numerous petitions for corporate rehabilitation where they had a verbal agreement that Miguel be entitled to P50,000 for every Stay Order and 10 (10 %) percent of the fees . After Atty. Bede was able to rake in millions of pesos from the corporate rehabilitation cases they were working together , Atty. Bede denied
Image of page 22
Image of page 23

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture