A.C. No. 10815 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5089) - ATTY. VICENTE ROY L. KAYABAN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO B. PALICTE, III.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent filed a Notice of Change of Address of Counsel in Civil Case No. 82422. [14] Finding this remedy insufficient to rectify respondent's continuous misrepresentation, complainant sent another letter to respondent, asserting his stance that mere change of address would neither correct anything nor allay his apprehensions that he (complainant) may still be held liable or responsible as supposed counsel in the subject civil case. Complainant then reiterated his demand for an immediate, positive, and corrective action from respondent's end. [15] His demand being unheeded, complainant instituted the present disbarment complaint against respondent. According to complainant, his supposed signature appearing on said Entry of Appearance was a forgery because he never signed the same and his official signature is actually long and complicated which he affixes after the main body of whatever pleading he files. He uses his initials only when he signs the Notice of Hearing and/or the Explanation of Service. Respondent used and forged complainant's initials in the Entry of Appearance in Civil Case No. 82422 because it is easier to forge than complainant's official signature. [16] To substantiate his allegation of forgery, complainant incorporated a specimen [17] of his primary signature and attached two (2) sample pleadings [18] with his official signature and initials. Records show that complainant also instituted a complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct against herein respondent before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). [19] To supplement the disbarment complaint against respondent, complainant submitted before the Court a copy of his Reply-Affidavit [20] in the Ombudsman case. Complainant, in said Reply-Affidavit, maintained that he had nothing to do with Civil Case No. 82422. He firmly denied having any informal partnership with respondent and insisted that the forgery of his signature in the Entry of Appearance in said civil case was respondent's doing. While it pains complainant that his relationship with respondent (who is complainant's friend and compadre , respondent's first-born son being complainant's godson) had turned this way, nonetheless, complainant stressed that he has a duty to protect his name and reputation. Respondent's misrepresentation and dishonest act and his subsequent failure to rectify his wrongdoings show his unfitness to stay not only in the legal profession but in public service as well. To be precise, respondent's acts and omission are indicative of his failure to conduct himself according to the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Rules 1.01, 10.01, and 16.01 thereof. [21] In his verified Comment/Opposition, [22] respondent countered that he and complainant were informal partners in the practice of law. It was during this informal partnership that Civil Case No. 82422 was referred to respondent sometime in 2003. [23] Naturally, respondent had the impression that it was again a par