Case Summary (G.R. No. 169517)
Key Dates
Incident dates alleged in the records: two parking incidents on May 5, 2005 (one at 10:00 a.m., another at 1:00 p.m.).
Filing of the criminal complaint with the City Prosecutor: May 8, 2005.
Decision date: March 14, 2006.
Applicable constitution for legal framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 2006).
Procedural Background and Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners charged respondent with indirect contempt for assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority by stating in the complaint-affidavit that he was a practicing lawyer. Respondent, in his Comment, asserted the allegation was an honest mistake: Atty. Aquino’s secretary prepared the subject complaint-affidavit by copying from Atty. Aquino’s own complaint-affidavit; two complaint-affidavits were drafted for the two parking incidents, and the one concerning the 10:00 a.m. incident inadvertently contained Atty. Aquino’s description (identifying him as a practicing lawyer and his office address). The 1:00 p.m. complaint-affidavit allegedly correctly described respondent as a businessman with office address Room B-204. The secretary, Liza Laconsay, executed an affidavit admitting the drafting mistake. Petitioners replied that respondent should nonetheless be held liable and could not shift blame to the secretary.
Applicable Law
Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court (indirect contempt provision) is dispositive: after a charge in writing and opportunity to comment and be heard, a person may be punished for indirect contempt for “assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority.” The jurisprudence cited by the court recognizes that unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such constitutes indirect contempt punishable by fine or imprisonment (cases cited include People v. Santocildes, Jr.; Re: Elmo S. Abad; People v. De Luna; United States v. Ney). The court also reaffirmed the settled rule that intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt; punishment requires proof that the accused intended to commit the prohibited act (People v. Godoy).
Issue Presented
Whether respondent Benedicto M. Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer in the complaint-affidavit filed with the City Prosecutor.
Court’s Factual Findings
The record contains an affidavit by Liza Laconsay admitting the drafting error, and documentary evidence (certifications from the Office of the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar) establishing respondent was not a member of the Bar. The court found that the inclusion of the statement that respondent was a practicing lawyer in paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit resulted from inadvertence by the secretary who copied Atty. Aquino’s affidavit text into the complaint-affidavit prepared for respondent.
Court’s Legal Analysis
The court applied the established rule that intent is an essential element for criminal contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71. The court distinguished the present facts from prior decisions where liability for unauthorized practice was found: those cases involved overt acts or clear manifestations of intent to practice law without authority (examples in the jurisprudence include signing court pleadings on behalf of clients, appearing in court as an attorney, manifesting intent to practice after being denied admission to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169517)
Procedural Posture
- Original petition for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio A. Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan before the Supreme Court (First Division) challenging respondent Benedicto M. Balajadia’s actions.
- Petitioners allege respondent filed a criminal case on May 8, 2005 with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City for usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of a city tax ordinance concerning alleged illegal collection of parking fees.
- The Court received pleadings including the petition (Rollo, pp. 3–7), respondent’s comment (Rollo, pp. 70–72), and other documentary exhibits and affidavits referenced in the record.
- The petition raises an allegation of indirect contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court based on respondent’s alleged misrepresentation as a practicing lawyer in the complaint-affidavit.
Parties
- Petitioners: Rogelio A. Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan — alleged victims of the criminal complaint filed by respondent and petitioners in the contempt proceeding.
- Respondent: Benedicto M. Balajadia — alleged filer of the criminal complaint and alleged misrepresenter of his status as a practicing lawyer.
- Third parties: Atty. Paterno Aquino (whose complaint-affidavit was allegedly used as a template) and Liza Laconsay (Atty. Aquino’s secretary who executed an affidavit admitting a drafting mistake).
Key Factual Allegations (as pleaded by petitioners)
- Petitioners contend respondent filed a criminal complaint-affidavit on or about May 8, 2005 against them in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City.
- In paragraph 5 of respondent’s complaint-affidavit, respondent allegedly asserted that he is a “practicing lawyer based in Baguio City with office address at Room B-207, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City.” (Rollo, p. 22)
- Petitioners present certifications from the Office of the Bar Confidant (Rollo, p. 33) and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Rollo, p. 32) which show that respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar.
- Petitioners therefore assert that respondent is guilty of indirect contempt for assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority.
Respondent’s Explanation and Comment
- Respondent avers that the statement in paragraph 5 alleging he was a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. (Rollo, pp. 70–72)
- He explains that Atty. Paterno Aquino’s secretary prepared the subject complaint-affidavit and that it was patterned after Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit. (Rollo, p. 75)
- Respondent indicates that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit involving the same subject matter against petitioners, and that two complaint-affidavits were drafted by the same secretary for two separate parking incidents on May 5, 2005 — one at 10:00 a.m. and one at 1:00 p.m. (Rollo, p. 75)
- Respondent asserts the complaint-affidavit concerning the 1:00 p.m. incident correctly stated he is “a businessman with office address at Room B-204, 2/F Lopez Building, Session Road, Baguio City.” (Rollo, p. 78)
- Respondent contends the complaint-affidavit for the 10:00 a.m. incident (the subject of the instant petition) erroneously referred to him as a practicing lawyer because the secretary copied verbatim paragraph 5 of Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit, which described Atty. Aquino’s person and law office address. (Rollo, pp. 75, 78)
- Respondent claims he did not read the complaint-affidavit, having assumed the two complaint-affidavits contained identical allegations regarding occupation and office address, and therefore had no intention to misrepresent himself as a practicing lawyer.
Supporting Affidavit and Documentary Evidence
- Atty. Aquino’s secretary, Liza Laconsay,