AC 5141; (September, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 5141. September 29, 1999.
PRISCILA L. TOLEDO, complainant, vs. ATTY. ERLINDA ABALOS, respondent.
FACTS
On July 9, 1981, respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from complainant Priscila L. Toledo, payable within six months with 5% monthly interest, and executed a Promissory Note to guarantee the obligation. After the six-month period, despite repeated demands, respondent failed to pay. Complainant sought assistance from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline. The Commission issued an order on February 1, 1995, directing respondent to file her Answer to the complaint. Despite receipt, respondent did not answer. On August 17, 1995, the Investigating Commissioner set the case for hearing on September 29, 1995. Despite due notice, respondent failed to appear, leading to ex-parte presentation of evidence by complainant. Respondent received the order via registry return but took no action. On June 19, 1999, the Commission recommended respondent’s suspension from law practice for six months for flouting lawful orders and illustrating disregard of her oath, but declined to discipline her for the financial obligation, as it was incurred in her private capacity.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Erlinda Abalos may be disciplined for (1) failing to pay her loan obligation to complainant, and (2) disregarding lawful orders of the Commission on Bar Discipline.
RULING
1. On the loan obligation: The Supreme Court agreed with the Commission that respondent may not be disciplined by the IBP or the Court for failing to pay her loan to complainant. The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct in a non-professional or private capacity. Complainant’s remedy is to file a collection case in a regular court.
2. On disregarding Commission orders: The Court found respondent’s wanton disregard of the Commission’s lawful orders subject to disciplinary sanction. While the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the collection complaint, respondent, as an IBP member, was still required to acknowledge its orders in deference to its authority. However, the recommended six-month suspension was deemed grossly disproportionate. The Court modified the penalty, suspending respondent from the practice of law for ONE MONTH from the finality of the Resolution.