Title
IN RE: Abad vs. Abad
Case
B.M. No. 139
Decision Date
Oct 11, 1984
Elmo S. Abad, unadmitted to the Bar, continued practicing law despite a Supreme Court prohibition, leading to contempt charges, fines, and warnings against further unauthorized practice.

Case Digest (B.M. No. 139)

Facts:

  • Procedural History
    • On March 28, 1983, the Supreme Court, En Banc, held Elmo S. Abad in contempt for unauthorized practice of law and imposed a fine of ₱500, which he paid.
    • On May 5, 1983, Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. moved that all Metro Manila courts be circularized that Abad is not authorized to practice law; Abad opposed.
    • In a resolution dated April 10, 1984, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to investigate the factual allegations and report with recommendations.
  • Investigation and Evidence
    • Clerk’s Report found documentary and testimonial evidence, plus an NBI forensic report, proving Abad signed court pleadings (Exhibits B, C, D) and appeared as counsel in RTC Quezon City Criminal Cases Nos. 26084–26086.
    • Key exhibits included:
      • Stenographic transcript (Exhibit A) showing “Atty. Elmo Abad” in court.
      • Urgent motions (Exhibits B–D) bearing his printed name and signature.
      • RTC order (Exhibit E) referring to “Atty. Elmo Abad.”
    • Witness testimony:
      • Atty. Candido A. Domingo, RTC Clerk of Court, certified the records.
      • Court reporter Eufrocina Ison positively identified Abad in the December 8, 1983 hearing.
    • Abad’s defenses:
      • Denied authorship of signatures and presence in court, claiming he was in Batangas.
      • Sought to introduce a videotape of his whereabouts and requested a signature comparison.
    • NBI Report (August 7, 1984) confirmed “fundamental, significant similarities” between the questioned and genuine signatures, concluding they were written by the same person.
  • Recommendations of the Investigator/Clerk
    • Impose a fine of ₱2,000 payable within ten days or twenty days imprisonment if not paid, with warning of harsher penalty for further unauthorized practice.
    • Debar Abad from bar admission until found fit by the Court.
    • Circularize all courts that Abad is not authorized to practice law.
    • File a complaint for false testimony (perjury) against Abad.
    • Require Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe to explain his association with Abad within ten days.

Issues:

  • Whether Elmo S. Abad continued to practice law without authorization after the March 28, 1983 contempt ruling.
  • Whether the evidence and NBI forensic findings justify imposing stricter sanctions, including a higher fine, imprisonment, debarment, and perjury proceedings.
  • Whether Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe should be disciplined for collaborating with a non-lawyer practitioner.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.