GATCHALIAN

PROMOTIONS TALENTS
POOL, INC.

VS.

ATTY. PRIMO R.
NALDOZA
Parties:
• Gatchalian Promotions
Talents Pool, Inc.
• Complainant

• Atty. Primo Naldoza

Respondent
 Facts:
On April 19, 1993, Gatchalian Promotions
Talents Pool, Inc., filed a Petition for
disbarment against Attorney Primo R.
Naldoza.
Naldoza's representation of
the complainant
(Gatchalian Promotions
Talents Pool, Inc) in an
appeal before the
Philippine Overseas
Employment Agency
(POE)
 Atty. Naldoza should be disbarred for
the following acts:
1. 2. 3.
Appealing a Deceitfully obtaining two Issuing a spurious
decision, thousand, five hundred and receipt to conceal
fifty-five US dollars ($2.555) his illegal act
knowing that the
from the complainant,
same was already
allegedly for "cash bond" in
final and the appealed case
executory
 Atty. Naldoza’s Answer:

• He denied that he persuaded Gatchalian Promotions to file an

appeal.
• On the contrary, he asserts that it was they who insisted on
appealing the case in order to delay the execution of the POEA
Decision.
• He also controverts their allegation that he asked for a cash bond
and that he issued the fake receipt.
• In a Resolution dated May 17, 1993,
this Court referred the case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.
 Complaint as summarized by IBP:

• Atty. Naldoza was given the task to defend the interest of the
Gatchalian corporation in POEA Case No. 8888-06-468, entitled
Lano, et al. versus Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc., et al.

• The respondent Atty. Naldoza knowing fully well that the said
decision had already become final and unappealable, through
malpractice in an apparent desire to collect or to "bleed" his client
of several thousand pesos of attorney's fees, convinced the
complainant to appeal the case before the Supreme Court
• December 14, 1992, Atty. Naldoza filed with the Supreme Court a
Petition for Review which was docketed as G.R. No. 107984,

• Two (2) days Atty. Naldoza misrepresented to the complainant

corporation that they had to pay, which it did, "Cash Bond" in
UNITED STATES DOLLAR amounting to TWO THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE (U.S. $2,555.00) to the Supreme
Court in order that the said appealed case could be heard or acted
upon by the Supreme Court. The said amount was given to Atty.
Naldoza.
• Atty. Naldoza presented the complainant a fake
xerox copy of an alleged Supreme Court receipt
representing payment of U.S. $2,555.00.
• The said verification revealed that what was only paid by the
respondent to the Supreme Court was the amount of P622.00 as
shown by the enumerated legal fees of the Supreme Court
Docket-Receiving Section showing the handwritten name of
the respondent for purpose of showing that the said
computation was requested by and addressed to the respondent
 A Criminal Case for estafa based on the same facts
was filed against Atty. Naldoza before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 141.
Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, He was
declared civilly liable in the amount of US$ 2,555
 A Criminal Case for estafa based on the same facts
was filed against Atty. Naldoza before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 141.
Although acquitted on reasonable doubt, He was
declared civilly liable in the amount of US$ 2,555
On February 16, 1998, Supreme Court received the IBP Board of
Governors' Resolution, which approved the investigating
commissioner's report and recommendation that respondent be
suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year
Issue:

Whether or not IBP’s Board of Governors' Resolution,

which approved the
investigating commissioner's report and recommendation
to suspend Atty. Naldoza from the practice of law for 1
year is proper?
(123) 456 - 7890

hello@reallygreatsite.com

123 Anywhere St., Any City, ST 12345

Ruling:

The Supreme Court agrees with the IBP Board

of Governors that the respondent should be
sanctioned. However, the recommended
penalty is not commensurate to the gravity of
(123) 456 - 7890

the wrong perpetrated .

hello@reallygreatsite.com

123 Anywhere St., Any City, ST 12345

 Atty. Naldoza was Disbarred

(123) 456 - 7890

hello@reallygreatsite.com

123 Anywhere St., Any City, ST 12345

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP's finding that Naldoza
should be sanctioned but disagreed with the recommended penalty.

The Court stated that Naldoza's acquittal in the criminal case did not
necessarily clear him of administrative liability, as the standards for
these cases are different. Criminal cases require proof beyond
reasonable doubt, while administrative cases need only a
preponderance of evidence.
• Regarding the appeal, the Court found no evidence to substantiate the
complainant's claim that Naldoza appealed the case despite knowing it was
already final and executory. The appeal was dismissed for other reasons.

• The Court agreed with the IBP that Naldoza obtained $2,555 from the
complainant under false pretenses, falsely representing that it was needed for the
appeal.

• Naldoza's defense of applying the money as part of his attorney's lien was
dismissed as an afterthought, as the accounting was done after the fact.

• Naldoza issued a fake receipt to conceal his misappropriation of the client's

money.
Based on these findings, the Court
concluded that Naldoza had violated
professional ethics and engaged in
malpractice and gross misconduct.
Consequently, the Court disbarred Naldoza
(123) 456 - 7890
and ordered the removal of his name from
the Roll of Attorneys.
hello@reallygreatsite.com

123 Anywhere St., Any City, ST 12345