Page 1 of 3

BONGALONTA vs CASTILLO and MARTIJA

CBD Case No. 176 January 20 1!!"
#a$%s& Complainant Bongalonta charged respondents Castillo and Martija,
both members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to
wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the
execution or satisfaction of a judgment which complainant might obtain.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the egional Trial
Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the !ps. "buel. !he also filed a separate
ci#il action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminar$ attachment
and b$ #irtue thereof, a piece of real propert$ registered in the name of the
!ps. "buel under TCT %o. &'&() was attached. "tt$. Pablito Castillo was
the counsel of the !ps. "buel in the aforesaid criminal and ci#il cases.
*uring the pendenc$ of these cases, one +regorio ,antin filed for collection
of a sum of mone$ based on a promissor$ note, also with the Pasig egional
Trial Court, against the !ps. "buel. -n the said case +regorio ,antin was
represented b$ "tt$. "lfonso Martija. -n this case, the !ps. "buel were
declared in default for their failure to file the necessar$ responsi#e pleading
and e#idence ex-parte was recei#ed against them followed b$ a judgment
b$ default rendered in fa#or of +regorio ,antin. " writ of execution was, in
due time, issued and the same propert$ pre#iousl$ attached b$ complainant
was 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, and
recommended that "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended from the practice
of law for a period of six .0/ months for using the -BP 1fficial eceipt %o.
of his co-respondent "tt$. "lfonso M. Martija.
Issue& 2hether the -BP Board of +o#ernors recommendation of Castillo3s
suspension be granted
'e(d& 4es. The !upreme Court agreed with the -BP Board of +o#ernors3
findings.
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 of
these re5uirements is the obser#ance of honest$ and candor. Courts are
entitled to expect onl$ complete candor and honest$ from the law$ers
appearing and pleading before them. " law$er, on the other hand, has the
fundamental dut$ to satisf$ that expectation. 6or this reason, he is re5uired
to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of an$ in court.
epublic of the Philippines
S)*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$ ;<, ;==<, addressed to the
Commission on Bar *iscipline, %ational +rie#ance -n#estigation 1ffice,
-ntegrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant !all$ Bongalonta charged
Page 2 of 3
Pablito M. Castillo and "lfonso M. Martija, members of the Philippine Bar,
with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests
and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a
judgment which complainant might obtain.
The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the egional Trial
Court of Pasig, Criminal Case %o. (0&<-<<, for estafa, against the !ps.
,uisa and !olomer "buel. !he also filed, a separate ci#il action Ci#il Case
%o. <0=&), where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminar$ attachment
and b$ #irtue thereof, a piece of real propert$ situated in Pasig, i>al and
registered in the name of the !ps. "buel under TCT %o. &'&() was
attached. "tt$. Pablito Castillo was the counsel of the !ps. "buel in the
aforesaid criminal and ci#il cases.
*uring the pendenc$ of these cases, one +regorio ,antin filed ci#il Case
%o. <'0<? for collection of a sum of mone$ based on a promissor$ note,
also with the Pasig egional Trial Court, against the !ps. "buel. -n the said
case +regorio ,antin was represented b$ "tt$. "lfonso Martija. -n this case,
the !ps. "buel were declared in default for their failure to file the necessar$
responsi#e pleading and e#idence ex-parte was recei#ed against them
followed b$ a judgment b$ default rendered in fa#or of +regorio ,antin. "
writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same propert$ pre#iousl$
attached b$ complainant was le#ied upon.
-t is further alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three .&/
aforementioned cases, "tt$. Pablito Castillo and "tt$. "lfonso Martija
placed the same address, the same PT and the same -BP receipt number to
wit@ Permanent ,ight Center, %o. (, A;st "#enue, Cubao, Bue>on Cit$,
PT %o. 0A=);; dated ;;-<-'= -BP %o. A)0(AA dated ;-;A-''.
Thus, complainant concluded that ci#il Case %o. <'0<? filed b$ +regorio
,antin was merel$ a part of the scheme of the !ps. "buel to frustrate the
satisfaction of the mone$ judgment which complainant might obtain in
Ci#il Case %o. <0=&).
"fter hearing, the -BP Board of +o#ernors issued it esolution with the
following findings and recommendations:
"mong the se#eral documentar$ exhibits submitted b$
Bongalonta and attached to the records is a xerox cop$ of
TCT %o. &'&(), which Bongalonta and the respondents
admitted to be a faithful reproduction of the original. "nd
it clearl$ appears under the Memorandum of
9ncumbrances on aid TCT that the %otice of ,e#$ in
fa#or of Bongalonta and her husband was registered and
annotated in said title of 6ebruar$ (, ;='=, whereas, that
in fa#or of +regorio ,antin, on 1ctober ;', ;='=.
%eedless to state, the notice of le#$ in fa#or of
Bongalonta and her husband is a superior lien on the said
registered propert$ of the "buel spouses o#er that of
+regorio ,antin.
Conse5uentl$, the charge against the two respondents .i.e.
representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to
frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which
Bongalonta and her husband might obtain against the
"buel spouses/ has no leg to stand on.
7owe#er, as to the fact that indeed the two respondents
placed in their appearances and in their pleadings the
same -BP %o. @A)0(AA dated
;-;A-''@, respondent "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo deser#es to
be !:!P9%*9* for using, apparentl$ thru his
negligence, the -BP official receipt number of respondent
"tt$. "lfonso M. Martija. "ccording to the records of the
-BP %ational 1ffice, "tt$. Castillo paid P;,?)?.?? as his
delin5uent and current membership dues, on 6ebruar$ A?,
;==?, under -BP 1.. %o. A=??<&', after Bongalonta
filed her complaint with the -BP Committee on Bar
*iscipline.
The explanation of "tt$. CastilloCs Cashier-!ecretar$ b$
the name of 9ster 6raginal who alleged in her affida#it
dated March ), ;==&, that it was all her fault in placing
the -BP official receipt number pertaining to "tt$.
"lfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings "tt$.
Castillo and in failing to pa$ in due time the -BP
Page 3 of 3
membership dues of her emplo$er, deser#es scant
consideration, for it is the bounded dut$ and obligation of
e#er$ law$er to see to it that he pa$s his -BP membership
dues on time, especiall$ when he practices before the
courts, as re5uired b$ the !upreme Court.
2799619, it is respectfull$ recommended that "tt$.
Pablito M. Castillo be !:!P9%*9* from the practice of
law for a period of six .0/ months for using the -BP
1fficial eceipt %o. of his co-respondent "tt$. "lfonso
M. 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 is
well 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 to
possess, the 5ualifications re5uired b$ law for the conferment of such
pri#ilege. 1ne of these re5uirements is the obser#ance of honest$ and
candor. Courts are entitled to expect onl$ complete candor and honest$
from the law$ers appearing and pleading before them. " law$er, on the
other 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 doing
of an$ in court.
2799619, finding respondent "tt$. Pablito M. Castillo guilt$
committing a falsehood in #iolation of his law$erCs oath and of the Code of
Professional esponsibilit$, the Court esol#ed to !:!P9%* him from the
practice of law for a period of six .0/ months, with a warning that
commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the
imposition of a more se#ere penalt$. " cop$ of the esolution shall be
spread on the personal record of respondent in the 1ffice of the Bar
Confidant.
!1 1*99*.
Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Vitug, JJ., concur.