Valmonte v. Quesada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Fe Eufemia E. Valmonte filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. for violating a Supreme Court directive suspending him from the practice of law for one year, effective from his receipt of the December 2, 2013 Resolution in Dagala v. Atty. Quesada, Jr. Complainant alleged that her husband, Marcelo A. Valmonte, Jr., was charged with murder. In March 2014, respondent entered his appearance as private prosecutor in the murder case on behalf of the victim's common-law wife and filed several pleadings. Complainant discovered that respondent filed these pleadings while serving his suspension. Procedural History: Respondent failed to file a comment and to appear during the mandatory conference before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Investigating Commissioner recommended a one-year suspension for unauthorized practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. The Petition: The complainant sought the disbarment of respondent for continuing to practice law despite a subsisting suspension order.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while under suspension. What is the appropriate penalty for respondent's unauthorized practice of law, considering he has already been disbarred.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. GUILTY of unauthorized practice of law. Although he has already been disbarred, the Court imposes a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), to be considered in the event he applies for the lifting of his disbarment. Additionally, a FINE in the amount of PhP 40,000.00 is imposed upon him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unauthorized practice of law: The Court affirmed the IBP's findings that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The records showed that respondent filed several pleadings, including a Notice of Appearance with Motion, a Comment on the Opposition, and a Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Private Prosecutor, in Crim. Case No. 4573-BG in March, May, and May 2014, respectively. These acts occurred three months after the promulgation of the Resolution suspending him from the practice of law on December 2, 2013. The Court reiterated the presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed is presumed to have been received in the regular course of mail, thus respondent was presumed to have received the suspension order. His continued filing of pleadings constituted clear proof of practicing law during his suspension, which is a violation of the lawyer's oath and a ground for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. This act was considered willful disobedience to a lawful order of a superior court. On the appropriate penalty: The Court noted that jurisprudence consistently imposes an additional six months suspension on lawyers who continue to practice law despite their suspension. However, the Court pointed out that respondent had already been meted the ultimate penalty of disbarment in an earlier case (Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr.). Consequently, an additional suspension could no longer be imposed as there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law once disbarred. Nevertheless, the Court held that it could still impose the penalty for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the OBC, which would be considered if he ever petitions to lift his disbarment. Furthermore, the Court asserted its authority to impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer for offenses committed prior to disbarment, as it does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over such acts. Therefore, the Court imposed a six-month suspension for recording purposes and a fine of PhP 40,000.00.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who continues to practice law despite a suspension order commits unauthorized practice of law, which is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Even if the lawyer has already been disbarred, the Court may still impose a penalty for the purpose of recording it in the lawyer's personal file and may impose a fine to assert its authority.