G.R. No. A.C. No. 12487, December 04, 2019
Fe Eufemia E. Valmonte, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fe Eufemia Estalilla-Valmonte filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. for violating the Supreme Court’s directive suspending him from the practice of law for one year pursuant to a December 2, 2013 Resolution in Dagala v. Atty. Quesada, Jr. The complainant alleged that her husband, Marcelo A. Valmonte, Jr., was charged with murder (Crim. Case No. 4573-BG) before the RTC of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33. In March 2014, respondent entered his appearance as a private prosecutor on behalf of the common-law wife of the victim and filed several pleadings in the case. The complainant later learned that respondent did this while he was supposed to be serving his suspension. Despite due notice, respondent failed to file a comment or appear before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended an additional one-year suspension, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. is guilty of unauthorized practice of law for filing pleadings and appearing in court while under suspension, and what is the appropriate penalty considering he was subsequently disbarred in a separate case (Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr.).

RULING

The Court found respondent guilty of unauthorized practice of law. His acts of filing pleadings (a Notice of Appearance with Motion on March 20, 2014, a Comment on the Opposition on May 9, 2014, and a Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Private Prosecutor on May 23, 2014) in Crim. Case No. 4573-BG months after the promulgation of his suspension order constituted a willful disobedience of a lawful court order, a ground for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court noted that recent jurisprudence consistently imposes an additional six-month suspension for such offense. However, since respondent had already been disbarred in Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr., the penalty of an additional six-month suspension could no longer be imposed, as a disbarred lawyer has no privilege to practice law to suspend. Nevertheless, the Court deemed it proper to record the corresponding six-month suspension penalty in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant for consideration in any future petition to lift his disbarment. Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of PhP 40,000.00 upon respondent, asserting its jurisdiction to discipline members of the legal profession for offenses committed prior to disbarment.