Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente

Noe-Lacsamana v.
Busmente
Petitioners claim: Noe-Lacsamana alleged that she was the counsel for the plaintiff
in a civil case 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 the said civil case was annulled, which resulted in the filing of an ejectment case
where Busmente appeared as counsel. Another case for falsification was filed
NoeLacsamana 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. NoeLacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was
not a lawyer. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found
that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer and that she
represented Ulaso as Busmentescollaborating counsel which
recommended Busmentes suspension from the practice of law for
not less than five years. The IBP Board of Governors, in its
resolution, adopted and approved the recommendation of the IBPCBD
against Ulaso where Busmente also appeared as counsel.
Respondents claim: 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 Macasieb(Macasieb),
Busmentes former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in
Civil Case No. 9284 and that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by NoeLacsamana was forged.
Wether or not 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
ISSUE:
RULING:
YES. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
The counter-affidavit 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.
Hence, we agree with the findings of the IBP-CBD that there was sufficient 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.
(yung sa contents ng counter- affidavit)
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 office to inquire about its
status. Busmentes allegation contradicted the Joint Counter-Affidavit 9 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 Office Cond. Plaza Cervantes, Binondo Manila.
b. That ELIZABETH DELA ROSA is not our legal counsel in the case
which have been filed by IRENE BIDES and LILIA VALERA in representation
of her sister AMELIA BIDES for Ejectmentdocketed 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 filed in the cases mentioned in
the Complaint-Affidavit that ELIZABETH DELA ROSA was our lawyer;
d. That if ever ELIZABETH DELA ROSA had affixed 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 filed 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
qualification; we just presumed that she has legal qualifications 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)

Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Noe-Lacsamana v.

NoeLacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty.

Wether or not Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly

a. That our legal counsel is Atty. YOLANDO F. BUSMENTE of the

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.