G.R. No. 210551 - Ferrer, Jr. vs. Bautista

Petitioners filed an original petition for contempt against respondent.
The case arose after respondent, on May 8, 2005, filed a criminal case with the City Prosecutor of Baguio City against the petitioners for usurpation of authority, grave coercion, and violation of a city tax ordinance over an alleged illegal collection of parking fees.

In the complaint-affidavit, specifically in paragraph 5, respondent was described as a “practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City.”
Contrary to the allegation, certifications from the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines confirmed that respondent had never been admitted to the Philippine Bar.

The misrepresentation allegedly occurred due to a mistake by Liza Laconsay, the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino, who copied verbatim from a complaint-affidavit previously filed by Atty. Aquino.
Two complaint-affidavits were prepared for separate parking incidents on May 8, 2005: one at 10:00 o’clock and another at 1:00 o’clock. Only the former mistakenly identified respondent as a practicing lawyer.
Liza Laconsay executed an affidavit admitting the error in drafting the complaint-affidavit.

Respondent contended that the reference to him as a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake.
He attributed the error to the fact that he did not carefully review the complaint-affidavit, assuming both documents contained similar allegations regarding his occupation and office address.
Respondent argued that he had no intention to misrepresent himself or to unlawfully practice law.

Petitioners argued that respondent should be held liable for indirect contempt for making untruthful and misleading statements in the complaint-affidavit.
They maintained that the error could not be excused by shifting the blame onto Atty. Aquino’s secretary.

Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court punishes indirect contempt for, among other acts, “assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority.”
The provision underscores that unauthorized practice of law in this context is a form of criminal contempt punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Established jurisprudence requires clear evidence of intent for criminal contempt, particularly when it involves misrepresenting one’s status as a lawyer.

Whether the respondent is liable for indirect contempt for the mischaracterization in the complaint-affidavit.

Did the erroneous allegation that he was a practicing lawyer equate to unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71?
Is the mistake by the secretarial staff sufficient to absolve the respondent of liability, considering the requirement of intent in criminal contempt cases?

Whether evidence supported a deliberate act by the respondent in misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
How the acknowledgment of inadvertence by the secretary impacts the determination of the respondent’s culpability.