Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EMRICO M. CABAHUG
NUELZON B. POLERO II
Complainant, A.M. NO. ___________
-for-
-versus- Disbarment
(Violation of the Rules of
Court 138 and Code of
Professional Responsibility)
A N S W E R
respectfully states:
1. Answering respondent admits that on June 15, 1996 he was a 4th year law
student of University of Memphis State Law School and was hired as a paralegal
staff in Stone Law Firm by Atty. J. Lyman Bruiser Stone (Atty. Stone);
Center Hospital on August 18, 1996, in Ospital ng Maynila on September 18, 1996
and in Philippine General Hospital on January 20, 1997. The status of the
answering respondent cannot be assailed in this proceeding due to the fact that
Atty. Stone, the employer of Rudy Baylor, instructed Baylor to seek pro bono
cases for him to handle for the purpose of giving back assistance to the people who
is in need, it is Atty. Stones devotion to give pro bono cases for 10 years;
Page 1 of 10
3. Answering respondent admits the allegation that he drafted Teresa
Wrights last will and testament. The status of the answering respondent cannot be
assailed in this proceeding. But the fact that Rudy Baylor, as a paralegal was
instructed by Atty. Stone to draft the last will and testament to be submitted to him
for his approval, revision and review. Rudy Baylor did not sign or represented
himself in the said document that he was the lawyer of Mrs. Wright;
March 27, 1997 from the Supreme Court informing the respondent to have passed
represented himself as the counsel in the initial trial for Mrs. Mary Black in an
insurance claim against Great Benefits Insurance Corporation in the trial court;
COUNTERARGUMENTS
All the arguments of the plaintiffs are denied by the answering def6endant
Rules 138 of the Rules of Court for: The respondents act of directly appearing
and even drafting legal documents was with a supervision Atty. Stone. The
Page 2 of 10
Stone and all of his drafted documents were reviewed by Atty. Stone before being
8. The respondent also deposes that his purpose was to misrepresent the
profession, every client he deals with knows that he is a paralegal in Stone Law
Firm and that he is not acting or disclosing that he is a lawyer at the time before he
Good Moral Character which causes him to be illegible for admission to the bar,
shall likewise be denied. The respondent even produces before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines during his application for admission to the Bar. NBI certificate is
10. In the case of Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyers Oath,
B.M. 712, the Court allowed petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's
oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession as the Court
recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the
contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine
concern for civic duties and public service. The Court is persuaded that Mr.
Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are
prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general
Page 3 of 10
11. The respondent cannot be held violating Canon 2.03 of the Code for
August 18, 1996, September 18, 1996, January 20, 1997 and February 13, 1997,
when he met certain Mary Black, Kelly Riker and Teresita Wright, the respondent
have not yet passed the bar nor admitted as a member of the Integrated Bar of the
12. On March 29, 1997, the respondent appeared as a counsel to the pro
bono case of Mrs. Black in the initial trial against Great Benefits Insurance
Corporation when he just passed the bar and not having taken yet the lawyers oath
and signed in the Roll of Attorneys, However such acts cannot be said to have
violated Canon 1.01 of the above mentioned code as before doing such
representation he told the truth to the judge. The respondent seeks forgiveness
before this Honorable Court for such conduct as he was just emotionally driven to
help Mrs. Black on her case, therefore his intention was clearly not to defy the law
or to lessen the confidence in the legal system. Attached hereto is the affidavit of
case without authority so to do. The respondent avers that his intention to represent
Mrs. Black was not for any corrupt motive or interest but with sincerest interest to
give justice to families like of Mrs. Black who has been a victim of large Insurance
Page 4 of 10
13. In the case of Areola v. Atty. Mendoza, A.C. 10135, it was stated that in
several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual
considerations, respondents advanced age, among other things, have had varying
takes note of Atty. Mendozas lack of ill-motive in the present case and her being
the last will and testament of Mrs. Wright is also untenable. The last will and
testament he drafted was not yet official as it has not been notarized. Said draft was
still subject for review and revision of Mrs. Wrights lawyer, Atty. Stone.
reasonable doubt that the respondent has liability over the alleged occasion;
preponderance of evidence that would show that the respondent warrants good
moral character;
17. The court has consistently held that a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Immoral conduct involves acts that
are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the
Page 5 of 10
opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community. Immoral
decency. The Court makes these distinctions, as the supreme penalty of disbarment
arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.
18. In Aba et al., v Attys. De Guzman et al., AC 7469, the court explains on
rules on evidences and states that Section 3(a), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
has consistently held that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is
innocent of charges against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer
of the court, he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with his
oath.
disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for
the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must
evidence, under Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, is not determined mathematically
upon its practical effect in inducing belief for the party on the judge trying the
Page 6 of 10
evidence, then by preponderance of evidence, and lastly by substantial evidence, in
of a member of the Bar, the Court has consistently held that clearly
Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is,
as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. It means
evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which
whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the
following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses manner
of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear
in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that
When the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt
on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the
P R A Y E R
Respectfully submitted,
Assisted By:
Page 8 of 10
The Clerk of Court
Supreme Court
Manila
GREETINGS:
Copy furnished:
Atty. _______________
Counsel for the Complainant Registry Receipt No.:___________
Address Date: March 14, 2016
EXPLANATION
This pleading is being served via registered mail in lieu of personal service
by reason of distance and lack of messenger.
Page 9 of 10
VERIFICATION
I, RUDY BAYLOR, of legal age, married, Filipino and with residence and
post-office address at Brgy. Taft, Pakil,Laguna, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby depose and say:
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the above stated Answer;
3. That I have read and fully understood all the allegations contained in the
foregoing Answer and to the best of my knowledge and belief, the same are true
and correct of our own personal knowledge.
RUDY BAYLOR
Respondent
CTC No. 04784735
January 9, 2020
Pakil, Laguna
Page 10 of 10