Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Cambaliza vs. Cristal-Tenorio [A.C. 6290.

14, 2004] FACTS:
16AUG Complainant is the former employee of
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR., C.J. the respondent in her law office. The former
FACTS: charged the latter for malpractice or other gross
[C]omplainant Ana Marie Cambaliza, a former misconduct in the office for cooperating in the
employee of respondent Atty. Ana Luz B. illegal practice of law by her husband. The
Cristal-Tenorio in her law office, charged the complainant submitted the following evidences:
latter with deceit, grossly immoral conduct, and 1) the letterhead of Cristal-Tenorio Law Office
malpractice or other gross misconduct in office. where the name of Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr.,
Case on deceit and grossly immoral conduct did husband of the respondent, is listed as a senior
not pursue lacking clear and convincing partner; and 2.) a Sagip Communication Radios
evidence. On malpractice or other gross Group identification card signed by the
misconduct in office, the complainant alleged respondent where her husband is identified as
that the respondent cooperated in the illegal Atty. Felicisimo Tenorio, Jr.. She added that
practice of law by her husband, who is not a respondents husband even appeared in court
member of the Philippine Bar and two other hearings. During the investigation of the IBP,
allegations. The respondent averred that this complainant filed a Motion to Withdraw
disbarment complaint was filed by the Complaint. Respondent now moved for the
complainant just to get even with her. The dismissal of the case for failure of the
complainant later filed a Motion to Withdraw complainant to appear in the said case.
Complaint as she is no longer interested in
pursuing the case. This motion was not acted ISSUES: 1. Whether or not respondent is guilty
upon by the IBP and the case was pursued. The of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.
IBP found the respondent guilty of assisting in 2. Whether or not a Motion to Withdraw
unauthorized practice of law. Complaint in a disbarment proceeding, the case
ISSUE: may prosper.
Whether or not Atty. Cristal-Tenorio violated the
Code of Professional Responsibility. HELD:
HELD: 1. YES. A lawyer who allows a non-member
YES. Respondent was suspended from the of the Bar to misrepresent himself as a lawyer
practice of law for six (6) months. and to practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9
RATIO: and Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional
A lawyer who allows a non-member of the Bar Responsibility. Public policy requires that the
to misrepresent himself as a lawyer and to practice of law be limited to those individuals
practice law is guilty of violating Canon 9 and found duly qualified in education and character.
Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional The purpose is to protect the public, the court,
Responsibility, which read as follows: the client, and the bar from the incompetence or
Canon 9 A lawyer shall not directly or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law
indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of and not subject to the disciplinary control of the
law. Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this
Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any purpose is attained, otherwise, the law makes it a
unqualified person the performance of any task misbehavior on his part subject to disciplinary
which by law may only be performed by a action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized
member of the Bar in good standing. practice of law.
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least
not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law 2. YES. A case of suspension or disbarment
is founded on public interest and policy. Public may proceed regardless of interest or lack of
policy requires that the practice of law be interest of the complainant. Disciplinary
limited to those individuals found duly qualified proceedings involve no private interest and
in education and character. afford no redress for private grievance. They are
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public