Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Tan vs. Balajadia

    Uploaded by

    JorgePatrickBalabis
    Respondent filed a criminal case against petitioners alleging illegal collection of parking fees. However, respondent misrepresented himself as a practicing lawyer in the complaint affidavit despite not being a member of the bar. Petitioners filed contempt charges against respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the misrepresentation was inadvertent as the complaint was patterned from another lawyer's complaint. The Court warned respondent to be more careful but did not hold him in indirect contempt as there was no evidence he intentionally practiced law without authorization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan vs. Balajadia

    Uploaded by

    JorgePatrickBalabis
    1K views1 page
    Respondent filed a criminal case against petitioners alleging illegal collection of parking fees. However, respondent misrepresented himself as a practicing lawyer in the complaint affidavit despite not being a member of the bar. Petitioners filed contempt charges against respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the misrepresentation was inadvertent as the complaint was patterned from another lawyer's complaint. The Court warned respondent to be more careful but did not hold him in indirect contempt as there was no evidence he intentionally practiced law without authorization.

    Original Description:

    dasdasdasd

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent filed a criminal case against petitioners alleging illegal collection of parking fees. However, respondent misrepresented himself as a practicing lawyer in the complaint affidavit despite not being a member of the bar. Petitioners filed contempt charges against respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the misrepresentation was inadvertent as the complaint was patterned from another lawyer's complaint. The Court warned respondent to be more careful but did not hold him in indirect contempt as there was no evidence he intentionally practiced law without authorization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Tan vs. Balajadia

    Uploaded by

    JorgePatrickBalabis
    Respondent filed a criminal case against petitioners alleging illegal collection of parking fees. However, respondent misrepresented himself as a practicing lawyer in the complaint affidavit despite not being a member of the bar. Petitioners filed contempt charges against respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the misrepresentation was inadvertent as the complaint was patterned from another lawyer's complaint. The Court warned respondent to be more careful but did not hold him in indirect contempt as there was no evidence he intentionally practiced law without authorization.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case Title: ROGELIO A.

    TAN, NORMA TAN and MALIYAWAO PAGAYOKAN, Petitioners,


    vs.
    BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA, Respondent.
    Docket Number: G.R. No. 169517
    Date: March 14, 2006
    Digest by: NICKO

    Summary/Nature of the Case:

    Facts of the Case


    1. This is an original petition for contempt filed by petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan against respondent Benedicto
    Balajadia. Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005, respondent filed a criminal case against them with the Office of the City of Prosecutor of
    Baguio City for usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by
    petitioners from respondent.
    2. In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent 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. However, certifications issued by the Office of the Bar Confidant3 and the Integrated Bar
    of the Philippines showed that respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent is liable for
    indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
    3. Respondent avers that the allegation in paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims
    that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquinos complaint-affidavit. It
    appears that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same subject matter.
    Issue/s
    1. Whether respondent is liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer?
    Ruling
    No. The respondent is not liable for indirect contempt.
    1. SC ruled that records support respondents claim that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear inadvertence
    on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino.
    2. Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish
    intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt. In the cases where we found a party liable for the unauthorized practice of law, the party was
    guilty of some overt act like signing court pleadings on behalf of his client; appearing before court hearings as an attorney; manifesting before the
    court that he will practice law despite being previously denied admission to the bar; or deliberately attempting to practice law and holding out
    himself as an attorney through circulars with full knowledge that he is not licensed to do so.
    3. In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law. Consequently,
    he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally practice law.

    Disposition: Petition dismissed. Respondent is WARNED to be more careful and circumspect in his future actions.

    Additional Notes: Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

    Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the
    respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
    following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

    xxxx

    (e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;

    You might also like