Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos
Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos
Villatuya vs. Tabalingcos
FACTS
Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against
Tabalingcos, Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required Tabalingcos
to file a comment, which the Tabalingcos did. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation. In a mandatory conference called for
by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, Villatuya and his counsel, and the
Tabalingcos appeared and submitted issues for resolution.
The commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position papers. In the
position paper submitted by Villatuya on August 1, 2005, he averred that he was
employed by Tabalingcos as financial consultant to assist Tabalingcos in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Villatuya claimed that they had a verbal agreement
whereby he would be entitled to ₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in
the cases they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees paid by their
clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was issued by the courts as a result of his
work and Tabalingcos being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were
working on together, the latter did not pay the amount due to him. He also alleged that
Tabalingcos engaged in unlawful solicitation of cases by setting up two financial
consultancy firms as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross
immorality, Villatuya accused Tabalingcos of committing two counts of bigamy for
having married two other women while his first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, Tabalingcos denied charges against him and asserted that the Villatuya
was not an employee of his law firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane
Management, Inc., one of the financial consultancy firms. Tabalingcos alleged Villatuya
was unprofessional and incompetent in performing his job and that there was no verbal
agreement between them regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. Tabalingcos also denied committing any unlawful solicitation.
To support his contention, Tabalingcos attached a Joint Venture Agreement and an
affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations of Jesi and Jane Management,
Inc. On the charge of gross immorality, Tabalingcos assailed the Affidavit of a
dismissed messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no probative
value, since it had been retracted by the affiant himself.
ISSUES