8/12/2019 5 Bongalonta vs Castillo
1/3
Page 1of 3
BONGALONTA vs CASTILLO and MARTIJA
CBD Case No. 176 January 20 1!!"
#a$%s& Complainant Bongalonta charged respondents Castillo
and Martija,
both members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical
conduct, towit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a
scheme to frustrate theexecution or satisfaction of a judgment
which complainant might obtain.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the
egional TrialCourt of Pasig, for estafa, against the !ps. "buel.
!he also filed a separateci#il action, where she was able to obtain
a writ of preliminar$ attachmentand b$ #irtue thereof, a piece of
real propert$ registered in the name of the!ps. "buel under TCT %o.
&'&() was attached. "tt$. Pablito Castillo wasthe counsel
of the !ps. "buel in the aforesaid criminal and ci#il cases.
*uring the pendenc$ of these cases, one +regorio antin filed for
collectionof a sum of mone$ based on a promissor$ note, also with
the Pasig egionalTrial Court, against the !ps. "buel. n the said
case +regorio antin wasrepresented b$ "tt$. "lfonso Martija. n this
case, the !ps. "buel weredeclared in default for their failure to
file the necessar$ responsi#e pleadingand e#idence ex-parte was
recei#ed against them followed b$ a judgmentb$ default rendered in
fa#or of +regorio antin. " writ of execution was, indue time,
issued and the same propert$ pre#iousl$ attached b$ complainantwas
le#ied upon.
Complainant further alleged that, in all the pleadings filed in
the three &/
aforementioned cases, "tt$. Pablito Castillo and "tt$. "lfonso
Martija
placed the same address, the same PT and the same BP receipt
number.
The BP Board of +o#ernors dismissed the case against Martija,
andrecommended that "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended from the
practiceof law for a period of six 0/ months for using the BP
1fficial eceipt %o.of his co-respondent "tt$. "lfonso M.
Martija.
Issue& 2hether the BP Board of +o#ernors recommendation of
Castillo3ssuspension be granted
'e(d& 4es. The !upreme Court agreed with the BP Board of
+o#ernors3findings.
The practice of law is not a right but a pri#ilege bestowed b$
the!tate on those who show that the$ possess, and continue to
possess, the
5ualifications re5uired b$ law for the conferment of such
pri#ilege. 1ne ofthese re5uirements is the obser#ance of honest$
and candor. Courts areentitled to expect onl$ complete candor and
honest$ from the law$ersappearing and pleading before them. "
law$er, on the other hand, has thefundamental dut$ to satisf$ that
expectation. 6or this reason, he is re5uiredto swear to do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an$ in court.
epublic of the PhilippinesS)*R+M+ CO)RT
Manila
T7* *8!1%
CBD Case No. 176 January 20 1!!"
SALL, D. BONGALONTA complainant,#s.
ATT,. *ABLITO M. CASTILLO and AL#ONSO M.
MARTIJA respondents.
9 ! 1 T 1 %
M+LO J.:
n a sworn letter-complaint dated 6ebruar$ ;
8/12/2019 5 Bongalonta vs Castillo
3/3
Page 3of 3
membership dues of her emplo$er, deser#es scantconsideration,
for it is the bounded dut$ and obligation ofe#er$ law$er to see to
it that he pa$s his BP membershipdues on time, especiall$ when he
practices before thecourts, as re5uired b$ the !upreme Court.
2799619, it is respectfull$ recommended that "tt$.Pablito M.
Castillo be !!P9%*9* from the practice oflaw for a period of six 0/
months for using the BP1fficial eceipt %o. of his co-respondent
"tt$. "lfonsoM. Martija.
The complaint against "tt$. Martija is hereb$*!M!!9* for lacD of
e#idence. pp. A-), esolution/
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and
recommendations. t iswell to stress again that the practice of law
is not a right but a pri#ilege
bestowed b$ the !tate on those who show that the$ possess, and
continue topossess, the 5ualifications re5uired b$ law for the
conferment of suchpri#ilege. 1ne of these re5uirements is the
obser#ance of honest$ andcandor. Courts are entitled to expect onl$
complete candor and honest$from the law$ers appearing and pleading
before them. " law$er, on theother hand, has the fundamental dut$
to satisf$ that expectation. for this
reason, he is re5uired to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doingof an$ in court.
2799619, finding respondent "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo
guilt$committing a falsehood in #iolation of his law$ers oath and
of the Code ofProfessional esponsibilit$, the Court esol#ed to
!!P9%* him from thepractice of law for a period of six 0/ months,
with a warning thatcommission of the same or similar offense in the
future will result in theimposition of a more se#ere penalt$. "
cop$ of the esolution shall bespread on the personal record of
respondent in the 1ffice of the BarConfidant.
!1 1*99*.
Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Vitug, JJ., concur.
