CASE DIGEST : ATTY. KAYABAN VS ATTY PALICTE AC No 10815 GAERLAN

 

EN BANC

[ A.C. No. 10815 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5089). October 05, 2021 ]

ATTY. VICENTE ROY L. KAYABAN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE, III, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

FACTS : This case arose from a verified disbarment complaint filed on June 26, 2015 by the complainant against respondent Atty. Leonardo B. Palicte III for misrepresentation and unauthorized use of complainant’s name and identity in Civil Case No. 82422 pending before the MeTC of Makati City, after complainant received a court order directing him to explain his non-appearance in a case he had no knowledge of and never entered as counsel. Investigation revealed that an Entry of Appearance had been filed using complainant’s name as part of “Kayaban Palicte & Associates,” allegedly bearing a forged signature, which complainant denied and supported with specimens of his genuine signatures and pleadings. Despite respondent’s apology and filing of a notice of change of address, complainant maintained that respondent continued to misrepresent him as counsel, prompting the disbarment case, alongside an Ombudsman complaint where respondent was later found guilty of Less Serious Dishonesty and suspended for nine months. Respondent denied forgery, claimed an informal law partnership with complainant, asserted prior substitution of counsel, and argued lack of evidence and breach of confidentiality by complainant. After investigation, the IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors adopted the findings and reduced the penalty to a two-year suspension, noting respondent’s status as a first-time offender and the Ombudsman’s finding of less serious dishonesty, with the case elevated to the Court for final resolution.

ISSUE : WON the IBP Governors was correct

HELD : The Court adopted the IBP Resolution and found respondent Atty. Leonardo B. Palicte III guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath and Canons 1, 7, 10, and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for misrepresentation and dishonesty in unauthorizedly using complainant’s name and address and making it appear that complainant was counsel of record in Civil Case No. 82422. The Court held that respondent knew of and participated in the filing of the disputed Entry of Appearance, failed to effectively rectify the misrepresentation despite repeated demands, and displayed a lack of candor, remorse, and respect for the courts, with circumstantial evidence—such as his apology letter, subsequent pleadings, and similarities in documents—supporting his liability. It further ruled that complainant did not violate the confidentiality rule by disclosing the disbarment case in the Ombudsman complaint, as such disclosure was necessary and the rule is not absolute. While respondent’s acts showed failure to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and his four-fold duty to society, the profession, the courts, and clients, the Court agreed that disbarment was too harsh considering this was his first offense and the acts were not committed in the performance of his official duties. Accordingly, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, sternly warned against repetition, and directed to immediately serve his suspension and notify the courts and concerned offices.