AC 10783; (January, 2018) (Digest)
A.C. No. 10783. January 31, 2018. ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME, Complainant, v. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent.
FACTS
The Court, in a Decision dated October 14, 2015, suspended respondent Atty. Christopher A. Basilio from the practice of law for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary for two years, effective immediately, for violations of the notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on April 20, 2016. However, subsequent reports from another attorney indicated that Basilio continued to appear in court and represent clients after the denial of his motion, specifically on dates in April and August 2016.
When required to show cause for this non-compliance, Basilio explained that he believed his suspension was not immediately executory and was held in abeyance pending the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. He cited the case of Maniago v. De Dios, arguing that only the notarial penalties were immediately effective. Later, he filed a Motion to Lift Suspension in July 2017, attaching certifications from local courts and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines indicating he had ceased practice from July 9, 2016.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Christopher A. Basilio failed to immediately comply with the Court’s suspension order and should be held liable for such failure.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is liable. The Court rejected Basilio’s defense based on the Maniago guideline. The Court clarified that the Maniago procedural rule applies specifically to administrative cases involving notarial commissions under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The present case, however, originated from a disciplinary action for violations of both notarial rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, resulting in the distinct penalty of suspension from the practice of law. The Court’s October 14, 2015 Decision explicitly ordered Basilio’s suspension from the practice of law to be “effective immediately.” This clear and unambiguous language mandated immediate compliance upon his receipt of the Decision on December 2, 2015. His continued practice of law thereafter constituted disobedience to a lawful court order.
Consequently, the Court found Basilio guilty of indirect contempt for his failure to immediately desist from practice. As an additional penalty for this contempt, and considering his eventual compliance and submission of required certifications, the Court imposed upon him a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). The lifting of his suspension order was held in abeyance pending payment of this fine. The Court sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.