G.R. No. 6483 ; August 31, 2007
Nicolas O. Tan, Complainant, vs. Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nicolas O. Tan engaged respondent Atty. Amadeo E. Balon, Jr. to handle a case concerning dishonored checks issued by Jose Guisande. Atty. Balon sent demand letters but ceased communication. Tan later discovered through new counsel that Guisande had already paid ₱60,000.00 to Atty. Balon, who admitted collecting the money. Atty. Balon proposed retaining ₱12,000.00 as attorney’s fees and issued two postdated checks for the ₱48,000.00 balance. Both checks were dishonored due to a closed account. Atty. Balon made a partial payment of ₱20,000.00 but failed to settle the full amount, prompting Tan to file this administrative complaint for misappropriation.
During the IBP investigation, it was revealed that Atty. Balon had already been disbarred by the Supreme Court in Lemoine v. Balon, Jr. on October 28, 2003, prior to the filing of this complaint. The IBP terminated the disciplinary proceedings for lack of jurisdiction but ordered Atty. Balon to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for failing to disclose his disbarment and for continuing to represent himself as a lawyer. Tan later filed an Affidavit of Desistance, claiming reconciliation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Amadeo E. Balon, Jr. is guilty of indirect contempt for failing to inform the IBP of his prior disbarment and for continuing to represent himself as a member of the Bar.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Balon’s failure to disclose his disbarment status during the IBP proceedings and his continued representation as a lawyer constituted conduct that degraded the administration of justice. His actions fell under Section 3(d) and (e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which defines indirect contempt to include any improper conduct tending to obstruct justice and the unauthorized assumption of authority as a court officer or attorney.
The legal logic is clear: a disbarred lawyer is stripped of the privilege to practice law and must not hold himself out as an attorney. By participating in the IBP proceedings without disclosing his disbarment, respondent misled the investigative body and undermined its processes. The Court rejected his explanation that he assumed the IBP was already aware, noting he was afforded due process through the opportunity to submit an explanation and pleadings. His prior disbarment in Lemoine for deceit and misappropriation underscored a pattern of unethical conduct. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of ₱30,000.00 as an appropriate penalty for indirect contempt, warning that failure to pay would result in imprisonment. The Affidavit of Desistance did not absolve him of this contemptuous conduct against the court and the IBP.