SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 11584. June 21, 2021.][formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604]
ROLANDO T. KO, petitioner,vs. ATTY. ALMA UY-LAMPASA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 June 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 11584 [formerly CBD Case No. 12-3604] (Rolando T. Ko, versus Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa). — This resolves the Motion to Lift Suspension 1 filed by Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa (respondent), praying that the Court deem her as having served the penalty imposed upon her, order the lifting of her suspension, and allow her to resume her practice of law.
In a Decision 2 dated March 6, 2019, the Court found respondent administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, finding Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa GUILTY of violating the Rule on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 and Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court hereby SUSPENDS her from the practice of law for six (6) months; REVOKES her notarial commission, effective immediately; and PROHIBITS her from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. She is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 3
On June 12, 2019, respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, 4 which was denied with finality in the Court's Resolution 5 dated February 19, 2020.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Manifestation 6 dated October 1, 2020, stating the following:
Upon receipt of the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, in the late afternoon of September 22, 2020, she promptly commenced service of her 6-month suspension [] the next day, or on September 23, 2020.
She informed the executive judge and judges of courts where she has cases, of the suspension of her private practice.
She also submitted her report as notary public on September 28, 2020. She ceased her functions as notary public also [] on September 23, 2020. 7
Subsequently, she filed a Motion to Lift Suspension 8 dated April 23, 2021. In addition to the averments in her earlier Manifestation, respondent detailed the steps she had undertaken following her suspension, which include: 1) informing her clients about her suspension and facilitating the transfer of their cases to other lawyers; 2) ceasing from notarizing documents and promptly submitting her notarial record to the Office of the Clerk of Court; 3) notifying the President of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)-Samar Chapter of her situation; 4) completely refraining from private practice of law; 5) ensuring that the matter of her suspension be put on record in each case she is handling, and insisting that her notice to the courts be attached to the record of each case; 6) notifying the Bureau of Internal Revenue that her office is not operational; and 7) ceasing from legal consultations and all other activities which would constitute practice of law. 9
Respondent claimed that her six-month suspension from the practice of law ended on March 21, 2021 and after which, she wrote to the courts where she used to practice her legal profession and requested for certifications to the effect that she did not appear thereat from September 23, 2020. 10 These certifications from various courts were annexed to her Motion. 11 The President of the IBP-Samar Chapter also issued a certification confirming that respondent has not engaged in the practice of law since her suspension. 12 Thus, respondent claimed that she has faithfully served her six-month suspension from the practice of law.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) submitted to the Court its Report and Recommendation 13 dated May 27, 2021, the pertinent portions of which provide:
As categorically stated by the Court, the lifting of the order of suspension at the end of the period of suspension is not automatic. An order from the Court lifting the order of suspension is necessary to enable the [r]espondent to resume the practice of his profession (A.C. No. 3066 [Mercado vs. De Vera] Resolution dated June 12, 2000). Respondent has to file a sworn statement that he has ceased and desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his suspension. Moreover, he has to show proof of his full compliance with the order of suspension by way of submitting certifications from the courts where he practices his legal profession, as well as from the IBP Chapter where he belongs, all affirming that he has ceased and desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in court as counsel for the duration of his suspension (A.C. No. 7472 [Maniego vs. De Dios] Resolution dated April 07, 2018). The same rules apply to disqualifications from being commissioned as a notary public.
Per verification, Respondent's suspension has indeed been fully served, and the certifications submitted are found to be in order. Her disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, however, still stands.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully recommend that the order of suspension against Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa be LIFTED and she be ALLOWED to resume her practice of law. Upon expiration of her disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, she shall file another Motion for the lifting of said disqualification and submit the same set of certifications in original copy. 14
Finding the same to be in accordance with the relevant rules and jurisprudence, the Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the OBC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to GRANT the Motion to Lift Suspension dated April 23, 2021 filed by respondent Atty. Alma Uy-Lampasa, and LIFT the order of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months imposed on respondent per Decision dated March 6, 2019, as affirmed in the Resolution dated February 19, 2020. Respondent is hereby ALLOWED to RESUME her practice of law. Respondent's disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public remains until the end of the two-year period disqualification and upon order of the Court to lift the same.
The Court NOTES respondent's:
1. Letter dated July 27, 2020, praying that the pending case against her proceed in the usual course, insulated from interference from non-parties thereon;
2. Letter dated September 23, 2020, stating that she has received the final decision of the Court imposing upon her a six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law and two (2) years disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and that she has already notified the Executive Judges of the courts where she appears of such decision;
3. Manifestation dated October 1, 2020, informing the Court that upon receipt of the denial of her motion for reconsideration on September 22, 2020, she promptly commenced service of her six (6)-month suspension on September 23, 2020, and ceased her functions as notary public also on September 23, 2020;
4. Letter dated December 15, 2020, seeking guidance if she must still file a motion to withdraw as counsel despite her written notices to the judges/court about her service of suspension since a motion is a pleading seeking relief and filing thereof may be construed as practice of law;
5. Letter dated December 28, 2020, inquiring whether she must still file a separation motion to withdraw as counsel in each case she used to handle prior to her suspension because she received a court order in one case directing her to file a motion to withdraw as counsel;
6. Manifestation dated May 4, 2021, submitting the original copy of the certification from the IBP Samar Chapter dated April 26, 2021 stating, among others, that she has neither handled nor appeared as counsel in any case in behalf of the IBP Samar Legal Aid Program for the period of September 23, 2020 until said date;
7. Letter dated May 4, 2021, submitting an advance copy of her motion to lift suspension; and
8. Motion to Lift Suspension dated April 23, 2021, praying that the Court deem respondent as having served the penalty imposed upon her, and order the lifting of her suspension, and allow her to resume her practice of law.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 647-651.
2.Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 311-320. Penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, with Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (now Retired) and Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, concurring, Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe on wellness leave.
3.Id. at 320.
4.Rollo, Vol. II, pp. 329-357.
5.Id. at 554-558.
6.Id. at 586.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 647-651.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 649.
11.Id. at 666-684.
12.Id. at 681.
13.Id. at 770.
14.Id. at 770.