THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9094. January 13, 2014.]
SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY GABRIEL H. ABAD, petitioner, vs. ATTY. RICHARD V. FUNK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9094 (Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., represented by Gabriel H. Abad v. Atty. Richard V. Funk). — The Court resolves to NOTE respondent's Comment (on complainant's Manifestation dated April 12, 2013) and Motion for Reconsideration that Respondent's Counter-Manifestation and Motion for Clarification and Plea for Due Process dated April 24, 2013 and Supplemental Pleading dated May 6, 2013 be Considered by this Honorable Court, dated September 30, 2013.
In its August 15, 2012 Decision, the Court suspended respondent Atty. Richard V. Funk from law practice for one year "effective immediately." Respondent received a copy of the Decision on August 30, 2012. He filed a motion for its reconsideration but the Court denied it with finality on October 22, 2012. He filed a second motion for reconsideration but the Court again denied it on February 25, 2013 for lack of merit and for being a prohibited pleading.
On April 12, 2013 complainant Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. informed the Court by manifestation that in a case 1 Atty. Funk continued despite his suspension to sign and file pleadings. Thus, on August 14, 2013 the Court required him to comment and show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court for violating the Court's Decision of August 15, 2012.
In his Comment, respondent told the Court, among other things, that his signing and filing of pleadings were due to an honest belief that the Court's Decision had not yet become executory. True, that decision said that it was "immediately" executory but he honestly thought that he was still entitled to exercise his right to due process which included the right to file a motion for reconsideration. Besides, the Court resolved his second motion for reconsideration only on February 25, 2013 and he signed and filed the subject pleadings on September 18, 2012, October 9, 2012, and January 7, 2013.
The Court is dismayed that Atty. Funk does not understand the meaning of the simple English words "effective immediately." Effective means "in effect; operative; active." 2 Immediately, on the other hand, means "without delay; at once; instantly." 3 To be fair, this means that, as to him, the suspension began from the day he had notice of what the Court required of him, namely, to desist from the practice of law. 4 What is so difficult about understanding the meaning of "effective immediately?" The Court was within its powers to make its decision effective in that way when the circumstances, as in this case, warranted it. Thus, he had to comply with the suspension order, immediately, without of course prejudice to his filing a motion for its reconsideration. 5 Indeed, the court still acted on such motion for reconsideration that he subsequently filed, denying it for lack of merit.
Since Atty. Funk admittedly continued to file and sign pleadings in court on September 18, 2012, October 9, 2012, and January 7, 2013 despite notice that he had been placed under immediate suspension from August 30, 2012 when he received the Court's decision, there is no question that he has acted contumaciously in disobeying the same.
Directives issued by the Court are not to be treated lightly, certainly not on the pretext that one has misapprehended their plain meaning. The effective and efficient administration of justice demands nothing more than faithful adherence to the rules and orders laid down by the Court. 6 Atty. Funk failed to show such adherence.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Atty. Richard V. Funk GUILTY of indirect contempt and IMPOSES on him a FINE of P10,000.00 for disobeying its Decision dated August 15, 2012. He is WARNED that in the future the Court will be less tolerant of similar contumacious acts.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Entitled: Mabalacat Institute, Inc. v. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 201268.
2. Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, p. 432.
3. Id. at 674.
4. Dr. Alday v. Judge Cruz, Jr., 426 Phil. 385, 387 (2002).
5. Id. at 389.
6. Id. at 390.