G.R. No. A.C. No. 1216 May 10, 1983
Marcelina C. Manikad, complainant, vs. Atty. Narciso V. Cruz, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marcelina C. Manikad and Domingo Panis were business partners in Asian Pacific Tours. The partnership was dissolved in 1973. Prior to dissolution, in 1970, they jointly executed a promissory note in favor of Tropical Commercial Co., Inc. for a tractor purchased for the partnership. After a payment default, Tropical Commercial sued both Manikad and Panis for collection in 1971 (Civil Case No. 82988). Respondent Atty. Narciso V. Cruz, Jr. filed an answer for the defendants. The verification was executed by Panis “in his own behalf and that of Marcelina C. Manikad.” A compromise agreement was later approved by the court, signed by Panis for the defendants with Cruz as counsel.
Manikad alleged she was never served with summons and only learned of the case when her bank deposit was garnished. Her motion to declare the proceedings void was denied. She subsequently filed a criminal charge for forgery against Panis, alleging her signature on the promissory note was forged. Cruz initially appeared for Panis in this forgery case but discontinued upon learning Manikad was the complainant. Manikad then filed this disbarment case against Cruz, alleging he appeared as her counsel without her consent.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Narciso V. Cruz, Jr. should be disbarred for corruptly and willfully appearing as counsel for Marcelina C. Manikad without her authority in Civil Case No. 82988.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated Atty. Cruz. The legal logic centers on the element of good faith and the context of the attorney-client engagement. Cruz explained that he entered his appearance based on Panis’s assurance that he had authority to represent the partnership, of which Manikad was president, and that the promissory note was a genuine partnership obligation. The Court, sustaining the Solicitor General’s finding, held that Cruz acted in good faith under a reasonable belief that Panis, as the managing partner to whom the use of the partnership signature was entrusted and who had transacted on its behalf, could secure legal representation for the partnership in a suit concerning a partnership debt.
The withdrawal of the complaint by Manikad’s own attorney-in-fact, who was convinced there was no case for disbarment, further supported the absence of malicious intent. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions require clear proof of willful misconduct. Cruz’s reliance on his client’s representations, coupled with the lack of evidence showing corrupt motive or knowledge of lack of authority, negated the charge of unethical practice. His subsequent withdrawal from the forgery case upon identifying the conflict also demonstrated professional circumspection.