G.R. No. A.C. No. 1900; June 13, 2012
RODRIGO A. MOLINA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rodrigo A. Molina filed a disbarment case against Atty. Ceferino R. Magat. The complaint alleged two primary transgressions. First, while serving as counsel for an accused in criminal cases, Atty. Magat filed a Motion to Quash an information for Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority on the ground of double jeopardy. He claimed a similar case for slight physical injuries had been filed by a “Pat. Molina.” However, no such case existed on record, and Atty. Magat, as counsel of record since the inception of the case, was fully aware of this fact. This act was alleged to be a malicious attempt to mislead the court.
Second, Atty. Magat admitted to appearing in court as counsel on two specific dates in December 1977 and January 1978 despite being under suspension from the practice of law by the Supreme Court at that time. In his defense, he claimed the motion to quash was filed under a mistaken impression and that his court appearances were motivated by altruistic reasons—to prevent an arrest warrant and to complete his client’s testimony due to financial hardship. He expressed repentance and apologized for these actions.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Ceferino R. Magat should be held administratively liable for his actions, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Magat is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ findings but modified the recommended penalty. Regarding the Motion to Quash, the Court agreed with the IBP’s conclusion that Atty. Magat’s claim of a mistaken impression was not credible. His assertion of a non-existent case constituted a deliberate attempt to mislead the court, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from doing any falsehood or misleading the court.
More significantly, Atty. Magat’s willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s suspension order constituted a grave offense. His admitted court appearances while under suspension directly contravened Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which lists willful disobedience of a lawful court order and appearing as an attorney without authority as grounds for disbarment or suspension. The Court rejected his altruistic justifications, noting he could have informed the presiding judge of his suspension status instead of entering his appearance as counsel. This act demonstrated a disregard for the Court’s authority and the integrity of the legal profession.
Considering the gravity of willfully violating a suspension order—an act that undermines judicial authority—the Court deemed the IBP’s recommended penalty of reprimand insufficient. While the events occurred decades prior, the need to uphold disciplinary standards outweighed the passage of time. Consequently, the Court suspended Atty. Magat from the practice of law for six months, with a stern warning that a repetition would be met with a more severe penalty.