Case Summary (A.C. No. 12121)
Factual Antecedents
Malecdan's complaint stemmed from Atty. Baldo's presence as counsel for the spouses Baldo during barangay hearings on August 14, 2014. Malecdan filed a formal Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Baldo on August 18, 2014, seeking sanctions for this purported violation. The complaint was processed by the IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter and eventually referred to the Committee on Bar Discipline-IBP after unsuccessful attempts at a conciliation conference.
Proceedings and Responses
Atty. Baldo acknowledged his appearance at the barangay proceedings in his Answer, claiming he was permitted by both the barangay officer and Malecdan to participate in discussions aimed at settlement. Despite this, Malecdan later asserted that Atty. Baldo's presence was contrary to Section 9 of P.D. 1508, emphasizing that the law mandates parties to appear without legal representation, a provision intended to facilitate direct dialogue and resolution.
Investigative Findings and Recommendations
Investigating Commissioner Eduardo R. Robles issued a Report recommending Atty. Baldo receive a warning, suggesting that the language of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law did not unequivocally bar lawyers from barangay appearances. However, he noted that Atty. Baldo's attendance could be seen as a lack of propriety.
IBP Board of Governors Resolution
The IBP Board of Governors reviewed the case and voted to reverse Commissioner Robles’ recommendation, instead deciding that Atty. Baldo should be reprimanded for his actions, characterizing his involvement as a breach of the stipulations laid out in P.D. 1508.
Court's Ruling
The Court analyzed the governing provisions, supporting the IBP’s conclusion that Section 9 of P.D. 1508 indeed imposes a mandatory requirement barring lawyers from participating in barangay proceedings, apart from specific exceptions for minors and those deemed incompetent. It reiterated that promoting personal confrontation among parties is essential to facilitate amicable settlements.
Violation of Professional Conduct
In affirming that Atty. Baldo’s actions violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court asserted that all attorneys must adhere to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 12121)
Introduction
- This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Complainant Celestino Malecdan against Respondent Atty. Simpson T. Baldo for allegedly violating Section 9 of Presidential Decree 1508, known as the Katarungang Pambarangay Law.
- The law prohibits lawyers from participating in the proceedings before the Lupon, emphasizing that parties must appear in person, except for minors and incompetents.
Factual Antecedents
- Malecdan initiated a 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 represented the spouses Baldo during the barangay hearing.
- Malecdan filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Baldo on August 18, 2014, requesting sanctions for violating Section 9 of P.D. 1508.
- The IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter set a conciliation conference on September 12, 2014, after informing Atty. Baldo of the complaint.
- The complaint was subsequently endorsed to the Committee on Bar Discipline of the IBP after the parties could not reach a settlement.
Proceedings and Responses
- Atty. Baldo was ordered to submit a verified Answer to the complaint within fifteen days.
- Malecdan filed a Mandatory Conference Brief, and the initial conference was rescheduled due to Atty. Baldo'