Noe-Lacsamana vs. Busmente

A lawyer who permits a non-lawyer to use his office address, professional name, and position to hold herself out as collaborating counsel and to represent clients in court proceedings is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting in the unauthorized practice of law under Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law.

The complainant, Atty. Edita Noe-Lacsamana, served as counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. SCA-2481 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167, while respondent Atty. Yolando F. Busmente represented the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. The annulment of Ulaso's deed of sale over the property subject of that case spawned two related proceedings: an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284, and a falsification case against Ulaso, in both of which Busmente appeared as counsel. The dispute centers on whether Busmente permitted a non-lawyer, Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa, to represent Ulaso as his collaborating counsel in the ejectment case.

Noe-Lacsamana was 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 counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso. The deed of sale over the property subject of that case was annulled, which led to the filing of an ejectment case before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan, docketed as Civil Case No. 9284, where Busmente appeared as counsel. A separate falsification case was also filed against Ulaso, in which Busmente likewise appeared as counsel.

During the proceedings in Civil Case No. 9284, a certain Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa, also referred to as Atty. Liza Dela Rosa, accompanied Ulaso in court, projecting herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court proceedings nine times from 25 November 2003 to 8 February 2005. Court orders and notices in the case specified Dela Rosa as Busmente's collaborating counsel. Upon verification with the Supreme Court and the IBP, Noe-Lacsamana discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.

Busmente claimed that Dela Rosa was a law graduate who had served as his paralegal assistant for a few years, and that her employment with him ended in 2000. He alleged that Dela Rosa continued to misrepresent herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb, his former secretary, who allegedly connived with Dela Rosa to prevent notices and pleadings from reaching him. Busmente denied representing Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and asserted that his signature on the Answer presented as proof by Noe-Lacsamana was forged. He later submitted an NBI report stating that the questioned signature on the Answer and the specimen signatures he submitted were not written by one and the same person.

The IBP-CBD found that there was no proof of Dela Rosa's separation from Busmente's employment in 2000. Notices from the MTC San Juan and the pleadings in Civil Case No. 9284 were all sent to Busmente's designated office address. Busmente claimed that Macasieb resigned in 2003, yet Dela Rosa continued to represent Ulaso until 2005, with pleadings and court notices still being sent to Busmente's office during that period. The IBP-CBD rejected the affidavit of Judy M. Ortalez, Busmente's staff, because it did not specifically refer to Ulaso's case and contained no assertion that Ortalez actually witnessed Macasieb withholding pleadings and notices. Moreover, the IBP-CBD noted that Macasieb was still working at Busmente's office in November 2003, as shown by an affidavit attached to a Motion to Lift Order of Default that she signed. As for the NBI report, it showed that Busmente only submitted the questioned signature on the Answer for comparison; he failed to impugn his signatures on other documents, including the Pre-Trial Brief dated 14 November 2003, the Motion to Lift Order of Default dated 22 November 2003, a letter dated 14 August 2003 addressed to Noe-Lacsamana, and three letters dated 29 August 2003 addressed to the occupants of the disputed property.

Critically, the Joint Counter-Affidavit submitted by Ulaso and Eddie B. Bides stated that Busmente was their legal counsel and that Elizabeth Dela Rosa was not their legal counsel but had accompanied them to courtrooms and hearings, providing them paralegal assistance. They stated that they presumed Dela Rosa had legal qualifications because Busmente allowed her to accompany them and attend their hearings. This counter-affidavit confirmed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he had allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Dela Rosa, who was not a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284, signing the minutes of court proceedings nine times from 25 November 2003 to 8 February 2005, with court orders and notices specifying Dela Rosa as Busmente's collaborating counsel.
• Verification of Status: Noe-Lacsamana verified with the Supreme Court and the IBP that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer, thereby establishing that Busmente had permitted an unauthorized person to practice law under his name and office.

• Termination of Employment: Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and his paralegal assistant for a few years, but that her employment ended in 2000, after which she continued to misrepresent herself as a lawyer without his knowledge.
• Connivance with Former Secretary: Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was able to continue her illegal practice of law through connivance with Regine Macasieb, his former secretary, who allegedly prevented notices and pleadings of Civil Case No. 9284 from reaching him.
• Forgery of Signature: Busmente denied representing Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284 and claimed that his signature on the Answer was forged, later supported by an NBI report stating that the questioned signature and his specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person.
• Lack of Knowledge: Busmente claimed he was totally unaware of Civil Case No. 9284 and only learned of it when Ulaso went to his office to inquire about its status.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: 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.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Yes. Busmente was found guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in the unauthorized practice of law, and was suspended from the practice of law for six months.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: The Court applied Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court defined "practice of law" as customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation, which may be shown by acts such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office. The Court found that Dela Rosa, a non-lawyer, misrepresented herself as Busmente's collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284, signing court minutes nine times over a period spanning 2003 to 2005. Busmente's defense that Dela Rosa's employment ended in 2000 and that she continued through connivance with his former secretary Macasieb was untenable, because Macasieb allegedly resigned in 2003 yet Dela Rosa continued representing Ulaso until 2005, with pleadings and notices still sent to Busmente's office. It would have been impossible for Dela Rosa to continue without access to the files in Busmente's office. The NBI report on the forged signature was limited to the Answer alone; Busmente failed to impugn his signatures on other documents including the Pre-Trial Brief, the Motion to Lift Order of Default, and several letters. Most decisively, the Joint Counter-Affidavit of Ulaso and Eddie B. Bides confirmed that Busmente was their legal counsel and that he had allowed Dela Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso, directly contradicting his claim of total unawareness of the case. The Court adopted the IBP Board of Governors' modified recommendation of six months' suspension.

• Canon 9 — Duty Not to Assist in the Unauthorized Practice of Law — A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. This duty is founded on public interest and policy: the practice of law must be limited to those duly qualified in education and character, to protect the public, the courts, 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. A lawyer must not permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible, the unauthorized practice of law by any person. In this case, Busmente violated Canon 9 by allowing Dela Rosa, a non-lawyer, to use his office address, hold herself out as his collaborating counsel, and represent clients in court proceedings.

• Definition of "Practice of Law" — 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 services. Holding oneself 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 office for the general practice of law. Dela Rosa's acts of signing court minutes, appearing in court, and being identified in court orders as collaborating counsel constituted practice of law.

• "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 individuals found duly qualified in education and character." — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for Canon 9, explaining why the duty against assisting unauthorized practice of law is a matter of public policy and not merely professional etiquette.

• "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." — This passage defines the affirmative obligation of lawyers to prevent their names and services from being used to enable unauthorized practice, establishing the standard for disciplinary liability under Canon 9.

• Cambaliza vs. Atty. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378 (2004) — Cited as controlling authority for the definition of "practice of law" and for the principle that a lawyer's duty to prevent unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. The Court relied on this case to establish that holding oneself out as a lawyer may be shown by acts such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law office.

• Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law." This canon was the sole basis for the finding of liability and the imposition of the six-month suspension. The Court found that Busmente's conduct—allowing a non-lawyer to use his office address and hold herself out as his collaborating counsel in court proceedings—constituted indirect assistance in the unauthorized practice of law.

Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, and Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred with the decision.