Cbd 176; (January, 1995) (Digest)
CBD Case No. 176, January 20, 1995
Sally D. Bongalonta, complainant, vs. Atty. Pablito M. Castillo and Atty. Alfonso M. Martija, respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Sally Bongalonta filed criminal and civil cases (for estafa and collection) against spouses Abuel, who were represented by Atty. Pablito Castillo. Bongalonta secured a writ of preliminary attachment on the Abuels’ property. During the pendency of these cases, a separate civil case for collection was filed against the same spouses by one Gregorio Lantin, represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. The Abuels were declared in default in Lantin’s case, leading to a judgment and a writ of execution levied upon the same property Bongalonta had attached. Bongalonta alleged this was a scheme to frustrate her potential judgment, noting that pleadings in all three cases filed by Castillo and Martija bore identical office addresses, PTR numbers, and, crucially, the same IBP Official Receipt number.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Atty. Pablito M. Castillo and Atty. Alfonso M. Martija are administratively liable for representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate judgment, and for the use of identical IBP receipt numbers.
RULING
The IBP Board of Governors and the Supreme Court dismissed the primary charge of conflicting interests and abetting a scheme. The notice of levy in Bongalonta’s favor was annotated on the property’s title months before Lantin’s levy, making her lien superior. Thus, the alleged scheme to defeat her claim had no legal basis. However, Atty. Pablito Castillo was found administratively liable for a falsehood in using Atty. Martija’s IBP Official Receipt number (No. 246722) in his court pleadings. Records showed Castillo paid his own dues under a different receipt only after the complaint was filed. The Court rejected his secretary’s affidavit claiming fault, emphasizing that it is the lawyer’s personal, non-delegable duty to ensure timely payment of IBP dues and the accuracy of information submitted to courts. Using another lawyer’s receipt number constituted a violation of his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Alfonso Martija was absolved for lack of evidence implicating him in the misuse of the receipt. Atty. Castillo was suspended from the practice of law for six months.