Rodrigo Molina V Atty Cafetino R.

Magat
This is a complaint filed by Rodrigo Molina for disbarment.

The complaint was raised when the complainant filed cases of assault upon an agent of a person in Authority Breach of the Peace and
Resisting Arrest against Pascual De Leon. Before the lower court. That the counsel for both records was Atty magat. Magat then filed
a motion to quash the information on Assault upon an agent of a Person in Authority on the grounds of double jeopardy. Claiming
there was a similar case was filed by Molina against de Leon. That based on the record was false. That atty Magat was the counsel
and private prosecutor of Deleon from the very start. That atty Magat filing the Motion to quash was malicious done in bad faith to
mislead the court., betrayal of confidence, and willful disobedience of the court order when he appear as counsel for de Leon on two
occasions despite the fact he was suspended from the practice of law

Atty magat admitted his appearances in court while under suspension. The first (1) appearance is to inform the accused was sick and
to prevent the issuance of a warrant of arrest and the second (2) he appeared because the accused had no money and pleaded that his
testimony is finished.

The IBP report and recommendation that Atty Magat be reprimanded and Fined 50000

Issue: WON he violated the code of professional responsibility(YES)

Ruling:

The court agrees with the findings of the IBP but not with the penalty.

Atty Magat falls short of the standards by the Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 10.01.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to
be misled by any artifice.

In this case, the Court agrees with the observation of the IP that there was a deliberate intent on the part of Atty.
Magat misled the court when he filed the motion to dismiss the criminal charges on the basis of double jeopardy. Atty. Magat should
not make any false and untruthful statements in his pleadings. If it were true that there was a similar case for slight physical injuries
that was really filed in court, all he had to do was to secure a certification from that court that, indeed, a case was filed.

Furthermore, despite the suspension, he admitted appearing in court on two occasions despite having been suspended from the practice
of law that prohibits under section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rule of Court.

Hence, he is suspended from practice of law for six (6) months with a warning.