When and how should a lawyer serve the order of suspension from law practice? This is the question clarified by the court in this case of Atty. Lulu.
On May 16, 2001, Atty. Lulu received the order of the Supreme Court (SC) suspending her from the practice of law for a period of six months. She served the suspension immediately upon receipt of said order. In a Manifestation dated October 19, 2001, she already informed the SC that she was resuming her practice of law on November 17, 2001 a day after she would have completed the 6 months period on November 16, 2001.
As manifested, Lulu resumed her practice on November 17, 2001. One of her clients was Miyasa, a Japanese National facing a criminal charge for violation of the bouncing checks law filed by Lina. Atty. Lulu started appearing as lawyer of Miyasa on April 9, 2003. She also appeared as counsel of Miyasa in a Special Proceeding starting October 10, 2005.
On March 15, 2007 however, the Acting RTC Executive Judge of the Province where Lulu was practicing, erroneously issued a directive ordering Lulu to desist from practicing law and revoking her notarial commission for 2007-2008. Even if she knew that the directive was questionable, Lulu nonetheless desisted from law practice. But she filed a Motion for Clarification with the SC because said order gave the impression that she was not yet allowed to resume practice despite the fact that she already completed serving the suspension order way back on November 16, 2001.
On the other hand, on April 2, 2007, when Lina learned from the RTC staff that Atty. Lulu had an outstanding suspension she filed an affidavit complaint seeking the disbarment of Lulu for engaging in the practice of law despite having been suspended by the SC. But on April 23, 2007, the SC issued a resolution on the Motion for Clarification filed by Lulu. In said resolution the SC deemed Lulu to have served her six months suspension and considered her recommencement of law practice on November 17, 2002 as proper.
Nevertheless, Lina insisted that the lifting of Lulu’s suspension was not automatic upon the end of the period of suspension stated in the Court order. Citing an opinion from the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) she contended that a suspended lawyer must first present proofs of his/her compliance by submitting certifications from IBP and the Executive Judge that she had indeed desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension. Should Lulu be disbarred?
No. Even if the practice of law is a mere privilege and an erring lawyer must be disciplined, it must also be ensured that a lawyer may not be deprived of the freedom and right to exercise her/ his profession unreasonably. In this case, Lulu’s resumption of law practice was already deemed as proper. Nevertheless, the following guidelines must be observed in the matter of the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension order: (1) a decision must be rendered by the SC imposing the penalty; (2) the decision shall be final and executory only upon expiration of 15 days from receipt without any Motion for Reconsideration being filed, unless the SC explicitly states that it is immediately executory; (3) upon the expiration of the period of suspension, the suspended lawyer must file a Sworn Statement with the SC through the OBC stating therein that he or she has desisted from law practice and has not appeared in any court during the period of suspension with copies furnished the IBP local chapter and the Executive Judge of the courts where the lawyer has pending cases as counsel; (5) said sworn statement shall be considered as proof of the suspended lawyer’s compliance with the order of suspension and any finding or report contrary to the statements made shall be a ground for a more severe punishment or disbarment as may be warranted (Maniago vs. De Dios, A.C. 7472, March 30, 2010, 617 SCRA, 142).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net