G.R. No. A.C. No. 10627 (from A.C. No. 6622), April 03, 2024
RENO R. GONZALES, JR. AND ROBIN BRYAN F. CONCEPCION, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTYS. SOCRATES RIVERA AND CRES DAN BANGOY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case originated from a Letter-Request filed by complainants Reno R. Gonzales, Jr. and Robin Bryan F. Concepcion, informing the Court that Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos, who had been disbarred by the Court in July 2012 (with the Resolution becoming final in October 2012), continued to practice law. Complainants specifically pointed to motions filed in an administrative case before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). They also requested an investigation of respondents Attys. Socrates Rivera and Cres Dan Bangoy, Tabalingcos’s partners/associates, for allegedly assisting in this unauthorized practice in violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court treated this request as a separate complaint docketed as A.C. No. 10627.
The allegations against respondents were: (1) Atty. Bangoy, together with the disbarred Tabalingcos, signed as counsel under “Tabalingcos and Associates Law Office” a Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum dated October 18, 2012, in the BSP case; and (2) Atty. Rivera signed a Notice of Change of Address dated December 2, 2013, as co-counsel of the same law office in the same BSP case. Complainants asserted these acts misrepresented to the public that Tabalingcos was still authorized to practice law.
In his Comment, Bangoy claimed he was no longer an associate of the law firm upon the finality of Tabalingcos’s disbarment in October 2012, having left in August 2012 to establish his own office. He denied knowledge of or participation in Tabalingcos’s unauthorized practice. Rivera failed to file his Comment despite several Court Resolutions requiring him to do so. For this failure, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 1,000.00 on Rivera, which he has not paid to date.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to hold respondents Attys. Socrates Rivera and Cres Dan Bangoy administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court resolved the case under the framework of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which had taken effect.
1. As to Atty. Cres Dan Bangoy: The Court found him guilty of directly assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. Records and his own admission showed he knew of Tabalingcos’s disbarment weeks before he allegedly left the firm and at least two months before co-signing the October 18, 2012 Motion for Extension. By knowingly signing the motion alongside the disbarred lawyer under their firm’s letterhead, he held out to the public that Tabalingcos was still an authorized practitioner. His defense of having left the firm was deemed unsubstantiated. For this violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the CPRA (specifically Canon III, Section 25), and considering his acknowledgment of his mistake and expression of remorse, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months.
2. As to Atty. Socrates Rivera: The Court found him liable for willful disobedience of lawful orders of the Court and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. His repeated and unjustified failure to file his Comment and to pay the imposed fine constituted gross misconduct and contempt. The Court adopted the Office of the Bar Confidant’s recommendation with modification. Considering his previous disbarment in a separate case (A.C. No. 11241), the Court could no longer impose a new penalty of suspension or disbarment. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00) for his defiance of court orders. The earlier fine of PHP 1,000.00 for his initial failure to comment remains unpaid and standing.