Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law
9.01
 A lawyer shall not delegate a task to an unqualified person and
such task can only be performed by a member of the bar in
good standing.
9.02
 Sd
 The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly
executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the
respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed
regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
(Cambaliza v. Cristobal-Tenorio)
Cambaliza v. Cristobal-Tenorio (2004)
 Complaint for disbarment on respondent lawyer by her former
employee at the law office for deceit, grossly immoral conduct,
and malpractice or other gross misconduct in office.
 Complainant alleges that respondent falsely represented
herself to be married to a certain Felicisimo who has a prior and
subsisting marriage with another woman.
 Complainant says the respondent and Felicisimo obtained a
false marriage contract.
 The marriage contract says they were married on Feb. 10 1980
but the civil registry and NSO had no record of such marriage.
 The their was also inconsistencies as to the date of marriage in
the birth certificates of their children.
Complainant
As to grossly immoral conduct
 Respondent disseminated to the public a libelous affidavit
derogatory to a city councilor.
 Respondent would often openly and sarcastically declare to the
complainant and her co-employees the alleged immorality of
Councilor Jacome.
On malpractice or other gross misconduct in office
 Respondent cooperated in the illegal practice of law by her
husband who is not a lawyer
 converted her client's money to her own use
 threatened the complainant and her family to deter them from
divulging respondent's illegal activities and transactions.
Respondent
 denied all allegations
 legally married to her husband
 husband had no prior subsisting marriage
 complainant and company are rumormongers who went
around on the pretext of conducting a survey but did so to
besmirch respondent's good name and reputation.
 That her law office is registered with the Department of Trade
and Industry as a single proprietorship.
 Complainant wanted to ger even after terminating latter’s
employment after receiving complaints that the complainant
extorted money from people, promising to process their
passports and marriages to foreigners, but reneged on promise.
 Complaint is politically motivated: some politicians offered to
re-hire the complainant and her cohorts should they initiate
this complaint, which they did and for which they were re-
hired.
 that respondent received numerous awards and citations for
civic works and exemplary service to the community.
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty for the charges made against her. –
YES, for cooperating in illegal practice of law, and NO for the act of
deceit and grossly immoral conduct. Suspended for 6 months
HELD:
As to deceit and grossly immoral conduct
 complainant failed to substantiate charges
As to illegal practice
 letterhead of the law office which lists her husband as a senior
partner.
 two other people in the law office were senior partners but
respondent admitted they were just paralegals.
 Such acts are blatant misrepresentation.
Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente (2011)
Complainant
 Complainant alleges that Busmente allowed a certain Dela Rosa
to be the latter’s collaborating counsel in a civil case and to
represent Ulaso, the client.
 alleges that Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court
proceedings in the civil case.
 It was discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
Respondent
 Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was
his paralegal assistant for a few years.
 Dela Rosa’s employment with him ended in 2000
 That he did not know Dela Rosa was not a lawyer because the
former was conniving with his (respondent) secretary,
Macasieb.
 That he did not represent the client in the civil case
 that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by
complainant was forged.
ISSUE: WON Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela
Rosa in her illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from
the practice of law. – YES, Court agrees with IBP. Suspended from
six months.
HELD:
IBP’s findings
 The pleadings and of the civil case were all sent to respondent’s
office address.
 IBP-CBD rejected affidavit stating that the secretary failed to
endorse pleadings and notices of the civil case to Busmente.
 Macasieb was still working at Busmente’s office in November
2003.
 Even if Macasieb resigned in November 2003, Dela Rosa
continued to represent Ulaso until 2005.
 Dela Rosa’s practice should have ended in 2003 when Macasieb
left.
 Therefore, this belies Busmente’s allegation that Dela Rosa was
able to illegally practice law w/o his knowledge and only due to
Dela Rosa’s connivance with Macasieb.
 It would have been impossible for Dela Rosa to continue
representing Ulaso in the case, considering Busmente’s claim
that Macasieb already resigned, if Dela Rosa had no access to
the files in Busmente’s office.
Ulab’s Affidavit
 That our legal counsel is Atty. Busmente
 Dela Rosa is not our legal counsel in the case
 presumed that Dela Rosa has legal qualifications to represent
us in cases because Busmente allowed her to accompany us
and attend our hearings.
Tapay and Rustia vs. Bancolo and Jarder (2013)
 Tapay and Rustia received an order from the Office of the
Ombudsman to file a counter-affidavit to a complaint filed
against them by Divinagracia and signed by Atty. Bancolo.
 Bancolo and Rustia happened to meet and the latter told the
former of the complaint.
 Bancolo said he never signed the complaint and he has yet to
meet Divinagracia.
 Rustia convinced Bancolo to make an affidavit to attest to the
fact.
 Tapay and Rustia filed a counter-affidavit accusing Divinagracia
of falsifying the signature of his alleged counsel, Bancolo.
 Ombudsman dismissed the Complaint since the falsification of
the counsel’s signature posed a prejudicial question to the
Complaint’s validity.
Divinagracia
 filed his Counter-Affidavit denying that he falsified the
signature of his lawyer.
 presented affidavit the legal assistant of Bancolo, that the
Jarder Bancolo Law Office accepted Divinagracia’s case.
 That Complaint was signed by the office secretary per Bancolo’s
instructions.
Office of the Ombudsman
 Dismissed case against Divinagracia for insufficiency of
evidence.
Tapay and Rustia suing Bancolo and Jarder
 Tapay and Rustia filed with the IBP a complaint to disbar
Bancolo and Jarder, Bancolo’s law partner.
Tapay and Rustia
 alleged that they were subjected to a harassment Complaint
filed before the Ombudsman with the forged signature of
Bancolo.
 attached a report by the crime lab which examined other letter-
complaints signed by Bancolo.
 The report concluded that the signatures in the letter-
complaints and the submitted standard signatures of Atty.
Bancolo were not written the same person.
 Respondents are involved in falsification of documents used to
harass and persecute innocent people as well as engaging in
unprofessional and unethical practices.
Bancolo
 after being informed of the cases, he ordered his staff to draft
necessary pleadings and documents.
 due to some minor lapses, Bancolo permitted the pleadings and
communications be signed in his name by his secretary.
ISSUE: WON Bancolo and Jarder violated Canon 9 of the CPR – Yes
for Bancolo, but NO for Jarder. Suspended 1 year.
HELD:
 No sufficient evidence to impute the violation to Jarder.
 Bancolo permitting his secretary in signing his name in the
complaint constitutes to unauthorized practice of law.
 The lawyer delegated to his secretary a task that a lawyer may
only do so.
 Therefore, Bancolo violated 9.01 of Canon 9.
Tumbokon v. Pefianco (2012)
 complaint for disbarment of respondent for grave dishonesty,
gross misconduct constituting deceit and grossly immoral
conduct.
Complainant
 respondent undertook to give complainant 20% commission,
later reduced to 10% of the attorney’s fees in representing Sps.
Yap after complainant referred Sps. to respondent.
 That agreement was reflected on a letter dated August 11.
 Respondent failed to pay him the commission despite receipt of
attorney's fees.
 Instead, he was informed through a letter dated July 16 that
Sps. Yap assumed to pay his commission.
 That respondent abandoned his legal wife and cohabited with
another woman with whom he had 4 children.
Respondent
 That the August 11 letter is a forgery.
 that Sps. Yap assumed to pay complainant's commission as
indicated in the July 16 letter
ISSUE: WON is liable under 9.02. – Yes, he was suspended for 1
year.
HELD: 
 Court agrees w/ findings of IBP.

As to the commission

 respondent's defense that forgery of the Aug 11 letter belied by

the July 16 letter admitting to have undertaken payment of
complainant's commission but passing on the responsibility to
Sps. Yap.
 Therefore, respondent has violated 9.02 which prohibits a
lawyer from dividing or stipulating to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in
certain cases which do not obtain in the case at bar.

As to infidelity

 respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his

legal family to cohabit with his mistress despite his moral
fitness being assailed.

Eustaquio v. Navales (2016)

 complaint against respondent praying that he be meted

disciplinary sanction/s for failing to pay rent and to vacate the
apt. he is leasing despite demands.
 Respondent and complaints had an amicable settlement where
the former would pay a considerable amount and vacate the
premises.
 Respondent reneged on his obligations, which prompted
complainants to file an ejectment case against him and another
before the IBP.
 IBP found respondent guilty and suspended him for 6 months.
 During the pendency of the case, respondent was appointed as
an Assistant City Public Prosecutor, and continued to discharge
his duties despite being suspended as stated by the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA).
 Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), inquired about the
respondent's suspension.
 OCA indorsed the matter to the OBC for appropriate action.
 OBC recommended that respondent be further suspended for
six months, thus, increasing his suspension to one year.

ISSUE: WON respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of

law – YES, he did. Suspended for one year.

HELD:

 Practice of law constitutes the discharge of duties only a duly

accepted member of the bar may exercise.
 It also includes the duties of an assistant city public prosecutor.
 What constitutes unauthorized practice of law is the discharge
of duties despite lawful order of the court to suspend the
attorney from practice of law.
 Therefore, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law when he continued to discharge his duties as an assistant
city public prosecutor when he was suspended for 6 months.

Bonifacio v. Era (2017)