Basiyo v. Alisuag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag for deceit, falsification, and malpractice. The complaint alleged that Atty. Alisuag failed to file a case for which he was retained, failed to secure environmental permits, failed to render an accounting of expenses for a property purchase, and refused to return unutilized funds despite numerous demands. Procedural History: On September 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a Decision finding Atty. Alisuag guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court suspended him for two years, revoked his notarial commission, and ordered him to render an accounting and return the unutilized money within sixty days. Atty. Alisuag's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on January 10, 2018. The Petition: Complainant Simmons filed manifestations on July 18, 2018, and January 10, 2019, informing the Court that Atty. Alisuag had failed to comply with the directive to account for and return the funds. Despite the Court's Resolution dated October 9, 2018, requiring Atty. Alisuag to comment on these manifestations, he failed to file any response. The Court noted that Atty. Alisuag had received all notices and resolutions, yet remained obstinate in his refusal to comply with the directives.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag's failure to comply with the Court's directives to render an accounting and return unutilized funds warrants the imposition of an additional disciplinary penalty.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of one (1) year (from his original two [2] years suspension) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag is DIRECTED anew to RENDER the necessary accounting of expenses incurred relative to the purchase of the property and RETURN to complainants Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons the remaining unutilized amount given to him, pursuant to the Decision dated September 26, 2017, within sixty (60) days from notice of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Willful Disobedience: The Court ruled that Atty. Alisuag's failure to comply with the 2017 Decision and subsequent resolutions constitutes a blatant disregard for judicial authority. Applying the principle in Ong v. Atty. Grijaldo, the Court held that its resolutions are not mere requests and must be complied with fully and promptly. The records established that Atty. Alisuag received the Decision and the denial of his motion for reconsideration, yet he chose to ignore the order to render an accounting and return the funds. This obstinate refusal betrays a recalcitrant flaw in his character and violates Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which requires lawyers to maintain respect for the courts. Under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court is a specific ground for suspension. Consequently, the Court exercised its sound judicial discretion to impose an additional one-year suspension to emphasize that such cavalier conduct will not be tolerated.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarifies that the practice of law is a public trust, and members of the Bar must maintain the respect due to the courts. Willful disobedience of a judicial order is not only a ground for contempt but also a basis for administrative discipline. When a lawyer ignores a final decision directing the return of client funds or the rendering of an accounting, they violate their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically the duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts under Canon 11. Such conduct demonstrates a blatant disregard for the legal system and warrants the imposition of additional periods of suspension.