THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11336. June 20, 2018.]
FE N. CHING-SEDURIFA, complainant,vs. ATTY. JOHN GIL S. UNAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 20, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11336 (Fe N. Ching-Sedurifa vs. Atty. John Gil S. Unay). — This administrative case stems from the Verified Complaint dated March 18, 2014 directly filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) by Ms. Fe N. Ching-Sedurifa against Atty. John Gil S. Unay. 1
According to complainant, Atty. Unay was meted the penalty of suspension for one month in this Court's June 5, 2013 Resolution in A.C. No. 9504, entitled "Nancy Nasayao v. Atty. John Gil S. Unay." Despite his suspension, however, Atty. Unay appeared in a hearing conducted on March 12, 2014 in National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) SDC Case No. 2013-04 (Butuan City) entitled, "Fe Ching-Sedurifa v. Raul R. Sedurifa." For the complainant, Atty. Unay's appearance during the hearing without an order lifting his suspension amounts to a blatant violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. 2
In his Comment dated August 5, 2014, 3 Atty. Unay explained that he was of the honest belief that no clearance or order from this Court is required before he can resume his practice of law. Atty. Unay narrated that he received the Court's Resolution dated June 5, 2013 4 in A.C. No. 9504 only July 3, 2013. The day after, or on July 4, 2013, he filed a Manifestation 5 informing this Court of his receipt of the Resolution and his intent to comply with it. As per the respondent, he served the penalty from July 4 to August 4, 2013, voluntarily desisting from the practice of law. On August 12, 2013, he filed a Sworn Statement with the OBC, furnishing all the courts in Butuan City with a copy thereof and stating his service of the one-month suspension imposed on him by the Court. For Atty. Unay, his filing of a sworn statement with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) is sufficient compliance with the guidelines set forth by this Court in Ligaya Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios6 in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law.
IBP Report and Recommendation
In his Report and Recommendation dated February 18, 2015, 7 Investigating Commissioner Erwin L. Aguilera found that respondent substantially complied with the guidelines set forth by this Court and recommended to give Atty. Unay sufficient time to file the necessary motion to lift his suspension, viz.: HcDSaT
WHEREFORE, finding the respondent's unparalleled cognizance of the sanction impose[d] upon him, readily submitting himself without reservation in his mind to the imposed suspension, plain and determined to attain the level of ethical vow due a practicing lawyer through imbibing the call of the Canons and its Tenets, he is given a period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this report within which to file before the Supreme Court whatever motion he deem[s] proper under the circumstances in order to lift his suspension.
At the moment, the order of suspension resulting from the Supreme Court Third Division dated June 5, 2013 (A.C. No. 9504 NANCY M. NASAYAO vs. ATTY. JOHN GIL S. UNAY) meted against herein respondent is deemed effective absent any formal resolution lifting the same.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 8
In Resolution No. XXI-2015-515 dated June 20, 2015, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner Aguilera, as follows:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws, Respondent is hereby directed to be guided of the Court's uniform policy on the matter of the lifting of the order of suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law in Adm. Case No. 7472 entitled "Ligaya Maniago vs. Atty. Lourdes De Dios" dated March 30, 2010.9
On January 21, 2016, respondent Atty. Unay filed with IBP-CBD an Ex-Parte Manifestation. Attached therewith were copies of this Court's Resolutions dated September 29, 2014 and January 21, 2015 both pertaining to the lifting of Atty. Unay's suspension from the practice of law and the final termination of A.C. No. 9504.
Our Ruling
The practice of law is not a right, but a mere privilege and, as such, respondent must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with his public responsibilities as a lawyer. 10 On this note, the Court has declared as early as our July 12, 2002 Resolution in J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. v. De Vera, 11 that "the lifting of an order of suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court's decision, and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable him to resume the practice of his profession." 12 We have recently, reiterated this rule in Tan v. Gumba13 where we reminded that "it is necessary that there is an order from the Court lifting the suspension of a lawyer to practice law." Atty. Unay, therefore, should have first moved for the lifting of his suspension before returning to the practice of law per the following guidelines set forth in Maniago v. Atty. De Dios: 14 ASTcaE
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent's compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
By weight of jurisprudence, a lawyer who engages in the practice of law despite an order of suspension is meted the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months for willful disobedience to a lawful order of the Court. In Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, 15 the Court held, thus:
Previously, we had already stated the standard for discipline upon erring lawyers who continue practicing despite being suspended by the Court, viz.:
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — 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 of 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 so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. cDSAEI
In Molina v. Atty. Magat, this court suspended further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law for six months for practicing his profession despite this court's previous order of suspension.
We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his position as Regional Director despite lack of authority to practice law.
Considering, however, the findings of fact and recommendation of the IBP-BOG and Investigating Commissioner as to respondent's good faith and timely submission of a Sworn Statement and the proof of his service of his suspension, the Court deems it proper to impose the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning for his conduct and failure to strictly comply with the order and guidelines of this Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court administers the penalty of REPRIMAND on respondent Atty. John Gil S. Unay. He is further ADMONISHED to observe a higher degree of fidelity in the practice of his profession and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. (Bersamin,J., on leave) CScTED
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-23.
2.Ibid.
3.Rollo at pp. 43-160.
4.Rollo, p. 153.
5.Rollo, p. 154.
6.Infra.
7.Rollo, pp. 282-290.
8.Ibid.
9.Rollo, p. 280.
10.La Jimenez v. Verano, Jr., A.C. Nos. 8108 & 10299 (Notice), November 24, 2015.
11. A.C. No. 3066 (Resolution), July 12, 2002.
12. Cited in Barillo v. Lantion, G.R. No. 159117 & A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752, [March 10, 2010], 629 PHIL. 39-86.
13.Tan, Jr. v. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018.
14.A.C. No. 7472 (Resolution), [March 30, 2010], 631 PHIL. 139-146.
15. A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015. See also Feliciano v. Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015; Lingan v. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 5377; [June 30, 2014], 737 PHIL. 191-209; Molina v. Atty. Magat, A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1.