AC 11543; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 11543, July 28, 2020
Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons, Complainants, vs. Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Susan Basiyo and Andrew William Simmons filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag for deceit, falsification, and malpractice. The allegations included his failure to file a promised case, failure to render a complete accounting of expenses for a property purchase, and failure to return remaining unutilized money after demands. The IBP Board of Governors found him guilty and recommended a two-year suspension. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated September 26, 2017, sustained this finding, suspended Atty. Alisuag from the practice of law for two years, revoked his notarial commission, perpetually disqualified him from being a notary public, and ordered him to render an accounting of expenses and return the unutilized amount to complainants within sixty days. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality on January 10, 2018. Complainant Simmons subsequently filed Manifestations dated July 18, 2018 and January 10, 2019, averring that despite receipt of the Court’s Decision and Resolution, Atty. Alisuag had not complied with the order to account and return the money. The Court required Atty. Alisuag to comment, but he failed to do so.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Joselito C. Alisuag should be subjected to an additional penalty for his willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s lawful orders to render an accounting and return unutilized funds.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found that Atty. Alisuag exhibited a blatant disregard for the Court’s authority by obstinately refusing to comply with its directives. He received the September 26, 2017 Decision on December 1, 2017, the January 10, 2018 Resolution denying his motion on March 5, 2018, and the subsequent order to comment, yet he failed to render the accounting or return the money. This willful disobedience of lawful orders constitutes a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is a ground for disciplinary action under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court suspended Atty. Alisuag from the practice of law for an additional period of one year, warned him that a repetition would be dealt with more severely, and directed him anew to render the necessary accounting and return the remaining unutilized amount to complainants within sixty days from notice.