Celestino Malecdan v. Atty. Baldo

SECOND DIVISION
[ A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322), June 27, 2018
CELESTINO MALECDAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.

SIMPSON T. BALDO, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J:
Before this Court is an administrative complaint[1] filed with the Office of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Baguio-Benguet Chapter (IBP Baguio-
Benguet Chapter) by Complainant Celestino Malecdan (Malecdan) against
Respondent Atty. Simpson T. Baldo (Atty. Baldo), for the latter's alleged
violation of Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508 (P.D. 1508), otherwise
known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, which prohibits. the
participation of lawyers in the proceedings before the Lupon:
SEC. 9. Appearance of parties in person. - In all proceedings

provided for herein, the parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel/representative, with the exception of
minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next of
kin who are not lawyers. (Emphasis supplied)
The Factual Antecedents
Malecdan filed a letter of complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and

Damages against spouses James and Josephine Baldo, before the Lupon of
Barangay Pico in La Trinidad, Benguet.
On August 14, 2014, Atty. Baldo appeared as counsel of spouses Baldo

during the hearing on the subject complaint before the Punong Barangay. [2]
On August 18, 2014, Malecdan filed a Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint)

before the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter praying that proper sanctions be
imposed on Atty. Baldo for violating Section 9 of P.D. 1508.
On August 20, 2014, the Committee on Ethics of the IBP Baguio-Benguet
Chapter furnished Atty. Baldo with a copy of the complaint and set the case
for a conciliation conference on September 12, 2014. [3]
On September 15, 2014, the Complaint was endorsed to the Committee on

Bar Discipline-IBP (CBD-IBP) by the Committee on Ethics of IBP Baguio-
Benguet Chapter after the parties failed to agree on a settlement. [4]
The CBD-IBP thereafter issued an Order[5] dated September 17, 2014,

requiring Atty. Baldo to submit a duly verified Answer, within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the order. [6]
On January 14, 2015, the CBD-IBP issued a Notice[7] setting the mandatory
conference/hearing of the subject complaint on February 18, 2015. [8]
On February 12, 2015, Malecdan filed his Mandatory Conference Brief. [9]
On February 23, 2015, the mandatory conference of the case was re‐
scheduled to March 24, 2015 after Atty. Baldo failed to attend the same. [10]
In his Answer[11] dated February 23, 2015, Atty. Baldo admitted that he was
present during the proceedings before the Punong Barangay. He explained
that he was permitted by the parties to participate in the said hearing, to wit:
1. The allegation in the complaint is admitted. However, the rest

of the truth to the matter is that, before entering the barangay
session hall, respondent asked permission from the officer-in-
charge if he will be allowed that before any hearing be
conducted, he and the respondent in the said barangay case,
his uncle, James Baldo, be allowed to talk to complainant
Celestino Malecdan as they may be able to amicably settle the
matter on their own, of which the officer in charge granted on
the reason that the proceeding was still in the dialogue stage;
2. Likewise, when he entered inside the barangay session hall

where complainant and his companion, Laila Alumno was
waiting, respondent again asked permission from complainant
and his companion, Laila Alumno if the latter will allow the
former to join them in the dialogue with James Baldo as the
parties may amicably settle the case on their own;
3. Since complainant already knew respondent as they had a

previous meeting at the office of complainant's lawyer, Atty.
Melissa QuitanCorpuz concerning the same case against James
Baldo, complainant readily permitted and allowed that parties have
a dialogue on their own with respondent joining them and without
the presence of any barangay officials. [12] (Emphasis supplied)
In an Order[13] dated March 24, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Eduardo

R. Robles gave Malecdan a period of fifteen (15) days to file a supplemental
complaint where he can incorporate other facts and circumstances which he
failed to indicate in his complaint. Atty. Baldo was likewise given a period of
fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the supplemental complaint within which
to file his supplemental answer should he wish to do so. [14]
On March 31, 2015, Malecdan filed his Verified Supplemental Complaint

Affidavit, [15] wherein he insisted that he vehemently objected to the presence
of Atty. Baldo during the proceedings before the Punong Barangay, to wit:
2. Using his influence as a lawyer, Atty. Baldo prevailed upon

the Punong Barangay and the Barangay Secretary to let him
participate in the barangay proceedings intended for the
settlement of our grievance against Spouses Josephine Baldo
and James Baldo on August 14, 2014.
3. He did this over my vehement objections. I told him that he

was not supposed to be there but then he insisted. It even got to
the point that we were already arguing out loud. I resented the
fact that he was there assisting and representing his clients,
the Spouses Baldo while I was not represented by counsel. We
were in a situation that Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508
sought to prevent. [16] (Emphasis supplied)
After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Robles rendered a Report

and Recommendation[17] on June 2, 2015, recommending that Atty. Baldo be
given a warning. Commissioner Robles found that the language of
the Katarungang Pambarangay Law is not that definite as to unqualifiedly
bar lawyers from appearing before the Lupon, nor is the language that clear
on the sanction imposable for such an appearance. [18] Commissioner Robles
reasoned that the matter of appearance or non-appearance before
the Lupon is clearly addressed to a lawyer's taste of propriety:
x x x. The respondent ought to have known that his attendance

thereat would have caused some ruckus. That respondent chose to
attend is some measure of his lack of propriety.
Although this Commission cannot legislate good taste or an acute

sense of propriety, the Commission can definitely remind the
respondent that another act of insensitivity to the rules of good
conduct will court administrative sanctions. [19]
The dispositive portion of Commissioner Robles' Report and

Recommendation reads as follows:
UPON THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that

the respondent Atty. Simpson T. Baldo be given a warning.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [20]
On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed a

Resolution[21] reversing and setting aside the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner and instead recommended that Atty. Baldo be
reprimanded, thus:
RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET

ASIDE, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Resolution as Annex "A", considering Respondent's appearance as
counsel for Spouses James and Josephine Baldo in a
Katarungan[g] Pambarangay hearing, Thus, Respondent is
hereby REPRIMANDED. [22] (Emphasis in the original and italics
omitted)
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties,

the Court upholds the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors.
The Court agrees with the IBP Board of Governors that the language of P.D.
1508 is mandatory in barring lawyers from appearing before the Lupon.
As stated in the case of Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, [23] Section 9 of P.D.

1508 mandates personal confrontation of the parties because:
"x x x a personal confrontation between the parties without

the intervention of a counsel or representative would generate
spontaneity and a favorable disposition to amicable
settlement on the part of the disputants. In other words, the
said procedure is deemed conducive to the successful resolution of
the dispute at the barangay level."
xxxx
"To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal

confrontation between the parties, and thereby, the
effectiveness of the barangay conciliation proceedings as a
mode of dispute resolution, the above-quoted provision is
couched in mandatory language. Moreover, pursuant to the
familiar maxim in statutory construction dictating that 'expressio
unius est exclusio alterius', the express exceptions made regarding
minors and incompetents must be construed as exclusive of all
others not mentioned."[24] (Emphasis supplied)
Atty. Baldo's violation of P.D. 1508 thus falls squarely within the prohibition
of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
which provides:
CANONA LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

1- THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

1.01 deceitful conduct.
-
Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal
processes. A lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide
by the law: and thus, avoid any act or omission that is contrary to the same.
[25] A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only speaks of his character
but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law. [26] Rule
1.01, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all
lawyers. Any act or omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized
by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or disregards the law is unlawful.
[27] Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the element of criminality
although the concept is broad enough to include such element. [28]
Here, Atty. Baldo admitted that he appeared and participated in the

proceedings before the Punong Barangay in violation of Section 9 of P.D.
1508. Atty. Baldo therefore violated Rule 1.01 of the CPR in connection with
Section 9 of P.D. 1508 when he appeared as counsel for spouses James and
Josephine Baldo in a hearing before the Punong Barangay, Barangay Pico,
Municipality of La Trinidad in Benguet.
All told, the Court finds that the evidence adduced is sufficient to support the
allegations against Atty. Baldo.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Simpson T. Baldo LIABLE for

violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stem warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe,

and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-7.
[2] Id. at 8-9.
[3] Id. at 3.
[4] Id. at 4.
[5] Id. at 11.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 12.
[8] Id.
[9] Id. at 13-14.
[10] Id at 18.
[11] Id. at 19-21.
[12] Id. at 19.
[13] Id. at 28.
[14] Id.
[15] Id. at 29-30.
[16] Id. at 29.
[17] Id. at 39-40.
[18] Id. at 39.
[19] Id. at 39-40.
[20] Id. at 40.
[21] Id. at 37-38.
[22] Id. at 37.
[23] 286 Phil. 917 (1992).
[24] Id. at 924-925, citing Minister of Justice Opinion No. 135, s. 1981.
[25] Maniquiz v. Atty. Emelo, A.C. No. 8968, September 26, 2017, p. 4.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 565 (2014).

Celestino Malecdan v. Atty. Baldo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Celestino Malecdan v. Atty. Baldo

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Celestino Malecdan v. Atty. Baldo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

CELESTINO MALECDAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.

SEC. 9. Appearance of parties in person. - In all proceedings

The Factual Antecedents

Malecdan filed a letter of complaint for Estafa, Breach of Contract and

On August 14, 2014, Atty. Baldo appeared as counsel of spouses Baldo

On August 18, 2014, Malecdan filed a Complaint-Affidavit (Complaint)

On September 15, 2014, the Complaint was endorsed to the Committee on

The CBD-IBP thereafter issued an Order[5] dated September 17, 2014,

1. The allegation in the complaint is admitted. However, the rest

2. Likewise, when he entered inside the barangay session hall

3. Since complainant already knew respondent as they had a

In an Order[13] dated March 24, 2015, Investigating Commissioner Eduardo

On March 31, 2015, Malecdan filed his Verified Supplemental Complaint

2. Using his influence as a lawyer, Atty. Baldo prevailed upon

3. He did this over my vehement objections. I told him that he

After due proceedings, Investigating Commissioner Robles rendered a Report

x x x. The respondent ought to have known that his attendance

Although this Commission cannot legislate good taste or an acute

The dispositive portion of Commissioner Robles' Report and

UPON THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. [20]

On June 20, 2015, the IBP Board of Governors passed a

RESOLVED to REVERSE as it is hereby REVERSED and SET

The Court's Ruling

After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties,

As stated in the case of Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, [23] Section 9 of P.D.

"x x x a personal confrontation between the parties without

"To ensure compliance with the requirement of personal

CANONA LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

Rule A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

although the concept is broad enough to include such element. [28]

Here, Atty. Baldo admitted that he appeared and participated in the

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Simpson T. Baldo LIABLE for

Carpio, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe,

[1] Rollo, pp. 6-7.

[2] Id. at 8-9.

[5] Id. at 11.

[9] Id. at 13-14.

[11] Id. at 19-21.

[12] Id. at 19.

[13] Id. at 28.

[15] Id. at 29-30.

[16] Id. at 29.

[17] Id. at 39-40.

[18] Id. at 39.

[19] Id. at 39-40.

[20] Id. at 40.

[21] Id. at 37-38.

[22] Id. at 37.

[23] 286 Phil. 917 (1992).

[28] Jimenez v. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551, 565 (2014).

You might also like

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