The Supreme Court in Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-Casilihan v. Atty. Eva Paita-Moya reaffirmed the serious consequences for lawyers who defy suspension orders. The Court emphasized that practicing law while under suspension is a direct violation of the Rules of Court and undermines the authority of the judiciary. This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers must strictly adhere to disciplinary actions imposed by the Court, ensuring the integrity of the legal profession and maintaining public trust.

Defiance in Daet: When a Lawyer’s Suspension Became a Case of Continued Practice

This case revolves around Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, who was previously suspended from the practice of law for one month in A.C. No. 7484. Despite receiving notice of this suspension, Atty. Paita-Moya continued to practice law, representing clients in various cases before different branches of the Regional Trial Court in Daet, Camarines Norte. This defiance of the Supreme Court’s order led to the filing of an administrative complaint against her by Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-Casilihan, who were opposing parties in cases where Atty. Paita-Moya unlawfully continued to represent her clients.

The complainants presented evidence showing that Atty. Paita-Moya filed pleadings, appeared in court, and continued to provide legal services during the period of her suspension. This evidence included certifications from various court branches in Daet, confirming Atty. Paita-Moya’s active involvement in cases despite the suspension order. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigated the matter and recommended that Atty. Paita-Moya be held liable for unauthorized practice of law. The IBP’s investigation revealed that Atty. Paita-Moya had been duly notified of her suspension but chose to disregard it, thus prompting the Supreme Court to take action.

Atty. Paita-Moya’s defense rested primarily on her claim that she had not received the resolution ordering her suspension. However, the Supreme Court found this claim to be false. The Court noted that Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 51-2009 clearly indicated that Atty. Paita-Moya had received the suspension order on July 15, 2008, as evidenced by Registry Return Receipt No. 2320. Furthermore, a certification from the Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed that the suspension had not been lifted as of May 8, 2009. The court thus found that the claim of lack of notice could not stand against the official records of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which addresses the grounds for disbarment or suspension of attorneys. This rule explicitly states that “a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court” is a ground for disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that Atty. Paita-Moya’s actions constituted a clear violation of this provision, as she knowingly disregarded the suspension order and continued to engage in the practice of law.

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

The Supreme Court cited the case of Maniago v. De Dios, which laid down guidelines for the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension. These guidelines require the suspended lawyer to file a Sworn Statement with the Court, attesting that they have desisted from the practice of law during the period of suspension. Additionally, copies of this statement must be furnished to the local IBP chapter and the Executive Judge of the courts where the lawyer has pending cases. These guidelines underscore the importance of compliance and transparency in the reinstatement process, and they were ignored in the present case.

The Court also referenced Lingan v. Calubaquib, where a similar penalty was imposed on an attorney who continued to practice law despite a previous suspension order. In that case, the Court emphasized that willful disobedience to a lawful order of a superior court is a serious offense that warrants disciplinary action. The principle established is that any form of defiance to the orders of the highest court of the land should merit sanctions.

The Supreme Court underscored that the unauthorized practice of law not only undermines the integrity of the legal profession but also jeopardizes the interests of the public. When a lawyer who has been suspended continues to practice, they are essentially deceiving their clients and the courts, as they are not authorized to provide legal representation. This can lead to unjust outcomes and erode public confidence in the legal system. Moreover, the legal profession demands that its members adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct, and any deviation from these standards can have severe repercussions. The court must be able to rely on members of the bar to be candid and forthright.

In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court found Atty. Eva Paita-Moya guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and imposed an additional suspension of six months, bringing her total suspension to seven months. The Court also issued a stern warning that any future similar offenses would be dealt with more severely. The decision serves as a reminder to all lawyers that compliance with court orders is not merely a matter of procedural formality but a fundamental requirement of ethical legal practice.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Eva Paita-Moya engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by continuing to represent clients despite being under suspension from the practice of law. This was a violation of the Rules of Court.
What was Atty. Paita-Moya’s defense?	Atty. Paita-Moya claimed that she had not received the resolution ordering her suspension and that she started serving her suspension at a later date. However, the Court found that the suspension was served.
What evidence did the complainants present?	The complainants presented certifications from various court branches in Daet, Camarines Norte, confirming that Atty. Paita-Moya continued to appear in cases and file pleadings during her suspension. This left no doubt that the attorney was in violation of the order.
What rule did Atty. Paita-Moya violate?	Atty. Paita-Moya violated Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which states that willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Such is a direct attack against the authority of the courts.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Paita-Moya guilty of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and suspended her from the practice of law for an additional period of six months. The Court emphasized the lawyer’s continued defiance.
What is the significance of Maniago v. De Dios?	Maniago v. De Dios established guidelines for the lifting of a lawyer’s suspension, requiring the lawyer to file a Sworn Statement attesting that they have desisted from the practice of law during the suspension period. These requirements were not met in the present case.
Why is practicing law during suspension a serious offense?	Practicing law during suspension undermines the integrity of the legal profession, deceives clients and the courts, and erodes public confidence in the legal system. The public must have faith in the legal system.
What was the IBP’s role in this case?	The IBP investigated the administrative complaint against Atty. Paita-Moya and recommended that she be held liable for unauthorized practice of law. The organization is in charge of monitoring the compliance.

This case serves as a clear warning to all members of the bar that the Supreme Court takes violations of its orders very seriously. Attorneys must comply with disciplinary actions imposed by the Court, and any attempt to circumvent these orders will be met with severe consequences. The legal profession relies on trust and any misconduct will be dealt with.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE AND CLARE SINFOROSA ANDRADE-CASILIHAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA, RESPONDENT., A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015