March 30, 2010
FACTS
The Supreme Court previously imposed a penalty of six months suspension from the practice of law on respondent Atty. Lourdes De Dios.
She served the suspension immediately upon the receipt of the Court’s order on May 16, 2001 to November 16, 2001.
Seeing that her suspension was about to end, Atty. De Dios notified the Court on October 19, 2001 that she would be resuming practice of law on November 17, 2001.
Upon the end of her date of suspension, she immediately started handling and filing cases: a civil case on December 14, 2001, a criminal case on April 9, 2003, a civil case on September 26, 2005, and others.
Complainant Ligaya Maniago, a complainant in one of the criminal cases handled by Atty. De Dios where Atty. De Dios is the counsel of the accused, learned from an RTC staff that Atty. De Dios had an outstanding suspension order from the Court.
Thus, Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. De Dios.
Maniago contended that Atty. De Dios violated the suspension order of the Court. Maniago presented the Letter-Opinion of Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant Ma. Cristina Layusa that stated the lifting of the suspension order is not automatic.
Atty. De Dios, on the other hand, reasoned that during those periods that she handled and filed cases, she was no longer suspended nor in any way prohibited from the practice of law.
Atty. De Dios pointed to a resolution issued by the Court that said she is deemed to have served her six-month suspension, and her recommencement of law practice on November 17, 2001 was proper.
According also to Atty. De Dios, between a Letter-Opinion and a Court Resolution, the Court Resolution prevails.
ISSUE
Whether or not Atty. De Dios is automatically readmitted to the practice of law upon the expiration of the period of her suspension.
RULING
NO, Atty. De Dios is NOT automatically readmitted to the practice of law upon the expiration of the period of her suspension.
The Court clarified that 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.
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.
The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED that the following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
- After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
- 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;
- 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;
- 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;
- The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension;
- 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.
SO ORDERED.
Full text of this decision.
