CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________

A.C. No. 7269.November 23, 2011.*

ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA, complainant, vs. ATTY.

YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE, respondent.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; 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 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 ones 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 ofce for the general practice of law.

_______________
*SECOND DIVISION.
1

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Carlo D. Busmente for respondent.

CARPIO,J.:
 The Case

Before the Court is a complaint for disbarment led by Atty.

Edita Noe-Lacsamana (Noe-Lacsamana) against Atty. Yolando F.
Busmente (Busmente) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP).

The Antecedent Facts

Noe-Lacsamana alleged in her complaint that she was the

counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. SCA-2481
before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, while
Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso
(Ulaso). Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Ulasos deed of sale over the
property subject of Civil Case No. SCA-2481 was annulled, which
resulted in the ling of an ejectment case before the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MTC), San Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284,
where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for falsication
was led against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel.
Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty.
Liza Dela Rosa (Dela Rosa) would accompany Ulaso in court,
projecting herself as Busmentes collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa
signed the minutes of the court proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284
nine times from 25 November 2003 to 8 February 2005. Noe-
Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders and notices specied
Dela Rosa as Busmentes collaborating counsel. Noe-Lacsamana
alleged that upon verication with this Court and the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his
paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela
Rosas employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able
to continue misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of
Regine

VOL. 661, NOVEMBER 23, 2011 3

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

Macasieb (Macasieb), Busmentes former secretary. Busmente

alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and
that his signature in the Answer1 presented as proof by Noe-
Lacsamana was forged.

The Decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline

In its Report and Recommendation,2 the IBP Commission on Bar

Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer and
that she represented Ulaso as Busmentes collaborating counsel in
Civil Case No. 9284. The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente
claimed that Dela Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there
was no proof of her separation from employment. The IBP-CBD
found that notices from the MTC San Juan, as well as the pleadings
of the case, were all sent to Busmentes designated ofce address.
The IBP-CBD stated that Busmentes only excuse was that Dela
Rosa connived with his former secretary Macasieb so that the
notices and pleadings would not reach him.
The IBP-CBD rejected the afdavit submitted by Judy M.
Ortalez (Ortalez), Busmentes staff, alleging Macasiebs failure to
endorse pleadings and notices of Civil Case No. 9284 to Busmente.
The IBP-CBD noted that Ortalez did not exactly refer to Ulasos
case in her afdavit and that there was no mention that she actually
witnessed Macasieb withholding pleadings and notices from
Busmente. The IBP-CBD also noted that Macasieb was still working
at Busmentes ofce in November 2003 as shown by the afdavit
attached to a Motion to Lift Order of Default that she signed.
However, even if Macasieb resigned in November 2003, Dela Rosa
continued to represent Ulaso until 2005, which belied Busmentes
allegation that Dela Rosa was able to illegally practice law using his
ofce address without his knowledge and only due to Dela Rosas
connivance with Macasieb. As regards Busmentes allegation that
his signature on the Answer was forged, the IBP-CBD gave
Busmente the opportunity to coordinate

_______________
1Rollo, pp. 17-25.
2Id., at pp. 193-207. Penned by Investigating Commissioner Patrick M. Velez.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente
with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to prove that his
signature was forged but he failed to submit any report from the NBI
despite the lapse of four months from the time he reserved his right
to submit the report.
The IBP-CBD recommended Busmentes suspension from the
practice of law for not less than ve years. On 26 May 2006, in its
Resolution No. XVII-2006-271,3 the IBP Board of Governors
adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with
modication by reducing the period of Busmentes suspension to six
months.
Busmente led a motion for reconsideration and submitted a
report4 from the NBI stating that the signature in the Answer, when
compared with standard/sample signatures submitted to its ofce,
showed that they were not written by one and the same person. In its
14 May 2011 Resolution No. XIX-2011-168, the IBP Board of
Governors denied Busmentes motion for reconsideration.

The Issue

The issue in this case is whether Busmente is guilty of directly or

indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law that
warrants his suspension from the practice of law.

The Ruling of this Court

We agree with the IBP.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Canon9.A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.

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.5 The

_______________
3Id., at p. 192.
4IBP Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 29-31.
5Cambaliza v. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378; 434 SCRA 288 (2004).

5
 VOL. 661, NOVEMBER 23, 2011 5
Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

Court further ruled that holding ones 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 ofce for the general
practice of law.6
The Court explained:

The lawyers 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 individuals found
duly qualied in education and character. The permissive right conferred on
the lawyer 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 law and not
subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to
see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to
be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by,
any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on
his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law.7

In this case, it has been established that Dela Rosa, who is not a
member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmentes
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284. The only question is
whether Busmente indirectly or directly assisted Dela Rosa in her
illegal practice of law.
Busmente alleged that Dela Rosas employment in his ofce
ended in 2000 and that Dela Rosa was able to continue with her
illegal practice of law through connivance with Macasieb, another
member of Busmentes staff. As pointed out by the IBP-CBD,
Busmente claimed that Macasieb resigned from his ofce in 2003.
Yet, Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005. Pleadings
and court notices were still sent to Busmentes ofce until 2005. The
IBP-CBD noted

_______________
 6Id.
7Id., at p. 389; p 296.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

that Dela Rosas practice should have ended in 2003 when Macasieb
left.
We agree. Busmentes ofce continued to receive all the notices
of Civil Case No. 9284. The 7 December 2004 Order8 of Judge
Elvira DC. Panganiban (Judge Panganiban) in Civil Case No. 9284
showed that Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa was still representing Ulaso
in the case. In that Order, Judge Panganiban set the preliminary
conference of Civil Case No. 9284 on 8 February 2005. It would
have been impossible for Dela Rosa to continue representing Ulaso
in the case, considering Busmentes claim that Macasieb already
resigned, if Dela Rosa had no access to the les in Busmentes
ofce.
Busmente, in his motion for reconsideration of Resolution No.
XVII-2006-271, submitted a copy of the NBI report stating that the
signature on the Answer submitted in Civil Case No. 9284 and the
specimen signatures submitted by Busmente were not written by one
and the same person. The report shows that Busmente only
submitted to the NBI the questioned signature in the Answer. The
IBP-CBD report, however, showed that there were other documents
signed by Busmente, including the Pre-Trial Brief dated 14
November 2003 and Motion to Lift Order of Default dated 22
November 2003. Noe-Lacsamana also submitted a letter dated 14
August 2003 addressed to her as well as three letters dated 29
August 2003 addressed to the occupants of the disputed property, all
signed by Busmente. Busmente failed to impugn his signatures in
these other documents.
Finally, Busmente claimed that he was totally unaware of Civil
Case No. 9284 and he only came to know about the case when Ulaso
went to his ofce to inquire about its status. Busmentes allegation
contradicted the Joint Counter-Afdavit9 submitted by Ulaso and
Eddie B. Bides stating that:
a.That our legal counsel is Atty. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE of the
YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES with
address at suite 718 BPI Ofce Cond. Plaza Cervantes, Binondo Manila.

_______________
8Rollo, p. 142.
9Id., at pp. 102-103.

VOL. 661, NOVEMBER 23, 2011 7

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

b.That ELIZABETH DELA ROSA is not our legal counsel in the case
which have been led by IRENE BIDES and LILIA VALERA in
representation of her sister AMELIA BIDES for Ejectment docketed as
Civil Case No. 9284 before Branch 58 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
San Juan, Metro Manila.
c.That we never stated in any of the pleadings led in the cases
mentioned in the Complaint-Afdavit that ELIZABETH DELA ROSA was
our lawyer;
d.That if ever ELIZABETH DELA ROSA had afxed her signature in the
notices or other court records as our legal counsel the same could not be
taken against us for, we believed in good faith that she was a lawyer; and we
are made to believe that it was so since had referred her to us (sic), she was
handling some cases of Hortaleza and client of Atty. Yolando F. Busmente;
e.That we know for the fact that ELIZABETH DELA ROSA did not sign
any pleading which she led in court in connection with our cases at all of
those were signed by Atty. YOLANDO BUSMENTE as our legal counsel;
she just accompanied us to the court rooms and/or hearings;
f.That we cannot be made liable for violation of Article 171 (for and in
relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code) for the reason that the
following elements of the offense are not present, to wit:
1.That offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated;
2.There must be wrongful intent to injure a 3rd party;
3.Knowledge that the facts narrated by him are absolutely false;
4.That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in
the narration of facts.
And furthermore the untruthful narrations of facts must affect the
integrity which is not so in the instant case.
g.That from the start of our acquaintance with ELIZABETH DELA
ROSA we never ask her whether she was a real lawyer and allowed to
practice law in the Philippines; it would have been unethical and shameful
on our part to ask her qualication; we just presumed that she has legal
qualications to represent us in our cases because Atty. YOLANDO F.
BUSMENTE allowed her to accompany us and attend our hearings in
short, she gave us paralegal assistance[.] (Emphasis supplied)

The counter-afdavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal

counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela Rosa to
give legal assistance to Ulaso.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

Hence, we agree with the ndings of the IBP-CBD that there was
sufcient evidence to prove that Busmente was guilty of violation of
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We agree with
the recommendation of the IBP, modifying the recommendation of
the IBP-CBD, that Busmente should be suspended from the practice
of law for six months.
WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Yolando F. Busmente from
the practice of law for SIX MONTHS.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Busmentes
personal record in the Ofce of the Bar Condant. Let a copy of this
Decision be also furnished to all chapters of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and to all courts in the land.
SO ORDERED.

Brion, Perez, Sereno and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Atty. Yolando F. Busmente suspended from practice of law for six

(6) months.

Note.A lawyer is bound by ethical principles in the conduct of

cases before the courts at all times. (Mangahas vs. Court of Appeals,
566 SCRA 373 [2008])
o0o