Maniago v De Dios

March 30, 2010

A.C. No. 7472 | Nachura, J.

FACTS:
 Case arose from an affidavit-complaint filed by Maniago in 2007, seeking the disbarment of
De Dios for engaging in the practice of law despite having been suspended by the Court.
 Maniago filed a criminal case against a certain Miyata, who was represented by Atty. De
Dios.
o Maniago then learned that De Dios had an outstanding suspension order from the
SC since 2001, and was therefore prohibited from appearing in court. She maintains
that De Dios’ appearances are in deliberate disobedience of a lawful order of the SC.
 Atty. De Dios denies that she was under suspension when she appeared as counsel for
Miyata.
o She actually served her 6-month suspension from May to November 2001. She then
formally informed the SC that she was resuming her practice, which she did.
o The problem arose when RTC Judge Farrales erroneously issued a directive on
March 2007, ordering respondent to desist from practicing law.
o Knowing that the directive was rather questionable, De Dios, nonetheless, desisted
from law practice in due deference to the court order. Thereafter, she filed a motion
for clarification with the SC, which gave the impression that she wasn’t yet allowed to
resume practice.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant, tasked to evaluate and make a recommendation on the
status of Atty. De Dios, made it clear that the lifting of the suspension order was not
automatic.
o Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his
compliance by submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
from the Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from the practice of law
during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon
a favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the order
of suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of law.
o In the case of De Dios, she was able to resume practice without submitting the
required certifications and passing through the OBC for evaluation.
o OBC recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy on the matter of the lifting
of the order of suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law.

ISSUE: W/N the Court should take cognizance of the report and recommendation of the
OBC

HELD: 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:
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the
Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to le a motion for reconsideration thereof.
The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall le 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;
 4. 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;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent's compliance with the
order of suspension;
6. 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.

RATIO:
 Practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent
regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.
 Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of
the Supreme Court to withdraw that same privilege.
 However, as much as the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer, it should, at
the same time, also ensure that a lawyer may not be deprived of the freedom and right to
exercise his profession unreasonably.