Lapitan V Salgado

LAPITAN V.
SALGADO
A. C. NO. 12452, 18 FEBRUARY 2020
NATURE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: This is a case for disbarment through a

Complaint filed by Michael Lapitan, in his capacity as the general manager of the Tagaytay
International Convention Center (TICC), charging Respondent Atty. Elpidio Salgado for
violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 1.02, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS: Lapitan alleged that on June 2010, Salgado entered into a banquet contract with
TICC as venue for the National and Real Estate Association, Inc. (NREA) sector
convention, the total amount of which was ₱200,000.00. Under TICC’s existing policy,
Salgado should have immediately made a down payment of 50%, but since Salgado was
a lawyer, Salgado, through deceit and malicious representation, was able to convince
Lapitan that he will pay the entire amount after the conclusion of the event.
After the event, Lapitan attempted to collect the amount. However, Salgado claimed that
he forgot to bring cash and instead, issued a post-dated check dated 29 June 2010 in the
amount of ₱210,253.90. When the said check was presented for payment on 2 July 2010,
it was dishonored for the reason “account closed”. Despite demands to pay, Salgado did
not settle the amount and even went into hiding. This prompted Lapitan to file a case for
Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Salgado.
The IBP-CBD acted out on Lapitan’s complaint. Summons served to Salgado returned
unserved with the reason “RTS-MOVED OUT”, and the Commission considered the
Summons as “DEEMED SERVED”. Salgado was declared in default. The IBP-CBD ruled
that Lapitan has proven his case by overwhelming evidence that Salgado committed the
crimes of Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and committed deceit and fraud
by making it appear that he forgot to bring cash during the NREA event when truly
Salgado had no intention to pay the contracted amount. The IBP-CBD recommended the
disbarment of Atty. Elpidio Salgado, and the IBP-BOG adopted the findings of fact and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD.
ISSUES: Whether Salgado is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
FALLO: SALGADO IS DISBARRED.
HOLDINGS: The Court finds Salgado guilty of deceit. From the evidence presented by
Lapitan, which was not refuted by Salgado despite due notice, makes it clear that Salgado
had no intention to pay the contracted amount for the event. Records show that the
contract amount has not been settled by Salgado to this date. Salgado committed deceit
by making it appear that he forgot to bring with him the necessary cash to pay for the
contracted amount when the terms of the banquet event contract clearly indicate that
the 50% down payment should have been made as early as upon signing the contract.
Salgado’s utmost disrespect to the Courts’ proceedings coupled with his deceitful conduct
on Lapitan warrant a grave penalty. Salgado is, convincingly, unfit to remain in the legal
profession.
RULING: Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that “a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any
deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or
by reason for his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice.
The Court held in Spouses Floran v. Atty. Ediza that in imposing the penalty of disbarment,
the Court is aware that the power to disbar is a power exercised by the Court with utmost
caution and such power is solely exercised only in cases of misconduct that seriously
affect the moral standing and character of members of the Bar as officers of the Court.
NOTES AND COMMENTS: “The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a
privilege clothed with public interest. To enjoy the privilege of practicing law as officers
of the Court, lawyers must adhere to the rigid standards of mental fitness and maintain
the highest degree of morality.” The power that comes with being a lawyer comes with
responsibility and adherence to standards is a must for a Bar member.

Lapitan V Salgado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lapitan V Salgado

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lapitan V Salgado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAPITAN V.

NATURE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY: This is a case for disbarment through a

ISSUES: Whether Salgado is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

FALLO: SALGADO IS DISBARRED.

You might also like