PETELO V.

RIVERA
A.C. No. 10408 | October 16, 2019 | Hernando, J.

Facts:
1. An administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Petelo (Petitioner) against Respondent (Atty. Rivera) due
to an unauthorized filing of a civil suit before the RTC of Makati (for a Declaration of a Nullity of Real
Estate Mortgage, Promissory Note, Certificate of Sale and Foreclosure Proceedings)
a. The administrative complaint sought the disbarment, suspension, or discipline against Atty.
Rivera for malpractice of law and violation of the Code of Profession Responsibility
2. Petitioner (Petelo) claims:
a. Petelo’s sister, Fe, designated him as the Attorney-in-Fact to enter into a Joint Venture
Agreement with Red Dragon Builders Corporation for the construction of a townhouse on a lot
owned by Fe
b. The owners of Red Dragon Builders had someone else appear as Petelo and act as Fe’s
attorney-in-fact so that they can get the original copy of the subject lot’s TCT
i. The subject lot was used as collateral by Red Dragon Builders for an 8 million php loan
they contracted with World Partners Bank (this happened all w/o the “real” Petelo’s
knowledge)
c. Owners of Red Dragon failed to pay monthly amortization, so World Bank instituted a
foreclosure proceeding against the mortgage on Fe’s land, wherein they were the highest
bidder and was issued a certificate of sale over Fe’s lot
d. Petelo learned all about this when there was a lis pendens of the civil suit annotated to the
back of Fe’ lot title
i. Petelo found out that Atty. Rivera was the one who filed the civil suit supposedly on
behalf Petelo and Fe
e. But Petelo claimed that he and Fe never engaged Atty. Rivera’s services, so he sent a letter to
Rivera seeking clarification, but no reply from the latter
i. Hence, the filing of the administrative complaint against Atty. Rivera for engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility
3. Respondent (Rivera) claims:
a. Presented different versions every time he submitted a comment
b. (1st version):
i. July 31 comment – someone representing himself as Petelo sought his services
regarding the filing of the suit
1. Thus, Rivera admitting that he authored the complaint
2. But even after Rivera was informed that it was not the real Petelo, the former
saw nothing wrong with what he did
3. Also mentioned that the civil suit filed with RTC Makati was already dismissed
due to not being filed by the proper in parties and the lawyer who signed the
complaint was not the real Petelo
4. The case was elevated to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation
a. Atty. Rivera’s comment (different from the July 31 comment):
i. Denied any participation in the preparation & fixing of the complaint
ii. Disowned the signatures affixed in the complaint and claimed forgery
iii. That he never attended any hearings regarding the case
b. Parties were required to submit position papers
5. Petelo’s position paper:
 a. Learned about the case thru a disbarred lawyer (Tabalingcos) he previously worked with, and
found out that Petelo’s details were still being used by Tabalingcos’ office without his authority
6. Rivera’s comment filed before the IBP:
a. He went back and reiterated his earliest comment wherein he admitted participation in the
filing of the civil complaint
b. BUT he denies committing unethical conduct –> moved for a dismissal of the administrative
complaint
c. BUT Rivera changed his admission by denying involvement in the filing complaints and claiming
forgery when submitting his position paper
7. IBP’s recommendation: Atty. Rivera suspended from practice of law for at least one (1) year
a. Atty. Rivera’s defense were inconsistent and erroneous
8. Board of Governors (BOG) of IBP: adopted IBP’s recommendation with modification – suspension from
practice of law for a period of one (1) year

Issue: W/N Atty. Rivera was administratively liable? – (YES)

Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Rivera is administratively liable.
1. It is obvious that Atty. Rivera was the one who filed the civil suit by allowing someone else to use his
signature and his other details to prepare the pleadings and filing with RTC-Makati
a. In effect, it allowed non-lawyers to practice law
b. Failed to display any zeal or eagerness in finding out about the truth regarding the filing of
unauthorized civil suit and correct the same
c. That despite claiming forgery, Rivera never tried to pursue any legal action against the forgers
2. SC states that the practice of law is a highly personal privilege not granted to everyone, but only
those who are members of the bar by successfully passing the bar exams, being admitted to the
Integrated Bar of PH and is in good standing
3. Rivera violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9 by delegating to someone the work reserved only to lawyers,
resulting to the court being misled
a. He willingly allowed a non-lawyer to practice law and allowed one to continue to practice law
despite being disbarred
b. Atty. Rivera admitted his association with a disbarred lawyer and their ongoing agreement to
allow the latter to use his signature and “details” for pleadings
4. Atty. Rivera cannot simply delegate to anyone to use his signatures and details since he does not
have the authority to give someone else the license to practice law
a. By doing so, River usurped the Court’s authority
b. The authority to allow someone to practice law, scrutinize the fitness and qualifications of its
members are always with the Court
5. Atty. Rivera made a mockery of the practice of law and ignored the consequences that came with the
filing of the civil suit
a. Here, Rivera’s actions affected the property rights of Petelo and Fe.
6. Other violations of the CPR Rule 1.10, Canon 1 and Rule 10.01, Canon 10

Doctrine: The practice of law is a highly personal privilege not granted to everyone. Such privilege is
authorized by the Court only to those who are members of the bar by successfully passing the bar exams,
being admitted to the Integrated Bar of PH and is in good standing.