Bongalonta vs. Atty. Castillo

A lawyer who uses another attorney's IBP Official Receipt number in pleadings and fails to pay his own IBP membership dues on time commits a falsehood in violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

Complainant Sally Bongalonta filed criminal and civil cases for estafa and collection against the Spouses Luisa and Solomer Abuel before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, with Atty. Pablito Castillo acting as counsel for the Abuel spouses. Bongalonta obtained a writ of preliminary attachment over the Abuel spouses' property registered under TCT No. 38374. During the pendency of these cases, Gregorio Lantin, represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija, filed a separate collection case against the Abuel spouses, resulting in a levy on the same property. Bongalonta charged both lawyers with representing conflicting interests and scheming to frustrate the satisfaction of her judgment, noting that both lawyers used the same address, PTR, and IBP receipt number in their pleadings.

Complainant Sally Bongalonta filed Criminal Case No. 7635-55 for estafa and Civil Case No. 56934 for collection against the Spouses Luisa and Solomer Abuel before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. In the civil case, she obtained a writ of preliminary attachment over a piece of real property in Pasig registered in the Abuel spouses' name under TCT No. 38374. Atty. Pablito Castillo served as counsel for the Abuel spouses in both cases.

During the pendency of these cases, Gregorio Lantin filed Civil Case No. 58650 for collection of a sum of money based on a promissory note, also against the Abuel spouses. Atty. Alfonso Martija represented Lantin. The Abuel spouses were declared in default for failing to file a responsive pleading, and judgment by default was rendered in favor of Lantin. A writ of execution was issued, and the same property previously attached by Bongalonta was levied upon.

Bongalonta noticed that in all pleadings filed in these three cases, Atty. Castillo and Atty. Martija used the same address, the same Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) number, and the same IBP receipt number. She concluded that Lantin's civil case was merely a scheme by the Abuel spouses, abetted by the lawyers, to frustrate the satisfaction of the money judgment she might obtain.

The IBP Board of Governors found that the notice of levy in favor of Bongalonta was registered on February 7, 1989, while that of Lantin was registered on October 18, 1989, making Bongalonta's lien superior. Thus, the charge of representing conflicting interests and scheming to frustrate execution failed. However, the IBP noted that both respondents used the same IBP Official Receipt No. 246722 dated January 12, 1988. Records showed Castillo only paid his delinquent and current IBP membership dues on February 20, 1990, under a different O.R. number, after Bongalonta filed her complaint. Castillo's cashier-secretary, Ester Fraginal, executed an affidavit taking full responsibility for placing Martija's IBP receipt number in Castillo's pleadings and for failing to pay Castillo's dues on time. The IBP rejected this explanation, holding that it is a lawyer's bounded duty to ensure timely payment of IBP dues.

• Conflicting Interests and Scheme to Frustrate Execution: Complainant alleged that Atty. Castillo and Atty. Martija represented conflicting interests and abetted a scheme by the Abuel spouses to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment she might obtain, pointing to the identical address, PTR, and IBP receipt numbers used by both lawyers in their pleadings.

• Negligence of Secretary: Atty. Castillo, through the affidavit of his cashier-secretary Ester Fraginal, argued that it was entirely his secretary's fault for placing Atty. Martija's IBP receipt number in his pleadings and for failing to pay his IBP membership dues on time.

• Validity of the Charge of Conflicting Interests: Whether respondents Atty. Castillo and Atty. Martija represented conflicting interests and abetted a scheme to frustrate the execution of a judgment.
• Liability for Using Another's IBP Receipt Number: Whether Atty. Castillo should be disciplined for using Atty. Martija's IBP Official Receipt number in his pleadings and for failing to pay his own IBP dues on time.

• Validity of the Charge of Conflicting Interests: No. The charge was dismissed for lack of evidence, as Bongalonta's levy was registered earlier and thus superior to Lantin's.
• Liability for Using Another's IBP Receipt Number: Yes. Atty. Castillo was suspended for six months for committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by using another lawyer's IBP receipt number.

• Validity of the Charge of Conflicting Interests: The IBP Board of Governors found that the notice of levy in favor of Bongalonta and her husband was registered and annotated on TCT No. 38374 on February 7, 1989, whereas the levy in favor of Lantin was registered on October 18, 1989. Because Bongalonta's lien was superior, the allegation that the lawyers schemed to frustrate her judgment had no leg to stand on.
• Liability for Using Another's IBP Receipt Number: The Court agreed with the IBP's recommendation. The explanation of Castillo's cashier-secretary that it was her fault was given scant consideration, as it is the bounded duty of every lawyer to ensure timely payment of IBP membership dues, especially when practicing before the courts. By using Martija's IBP receipt number, Castillo committed a falsehood. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege bestowed by the State, requiring honesty and candor. A lawyer must swear to do no falsehood, and using another's receipt number violates this oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Practice of Law as a Privilege — The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who possess and continue to possess the qualifications required by law, including the observance of honesty and candor. The Court applied this by suspending Castillo for failing to meet these qualifications.
• Duty of Candor and Honesty — Courts are entitled to expect complete candor and honesty from lawyers, who have a fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation and swear to do no falsehood. Castillo violated this duty by using another lawyer's IBP receipt number in his pleadings.
• Duty to Pay IBP Dues — It is the bounded duty and obligation of every lawyer to see to it that he pays his IBP membership dues on time, especially when practicing before the courts. A lawyer cannot delegate this responsibility to a secretary and use negligence as an excuse.

• "The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege." — This passage defines the foundational principle governing the legal profession and justifies the imposition of disciplinary measures.
• "Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation." — This establishes the standard of conduct required of lawyers in their dealings with the courts.

• Lawyer's Oath — Applied to hold Castillo liable for committing a falsehood by using another's IBP receipt number, as the oath requires a lawyer to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.
• Code of Professional Responsibility — Cited as violated by Castillo's act of using another lawyer's IBP receipt number and failing to pay his dues on time.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero, and Vitug, JJ., concur.