G.R. No. A.C. No. 5377; June 30, 2014
Victor C. Lingan, Complainant, vs. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga, Respondents.

FACTS

In a Resolution dated June 15, 2006, the Supreme Court found respondents Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath for allowing their secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of the Notarial Law. The Court suspended them from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years. Complainant Victor Lingan’s motion for reconsideration, seeking disbarment, was denied on September 6, 2006.
Atty. Baliga, who was also the Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Regional Office for Region II, filed an ex parte clarificatory pleading on March 22, 2007. He alleged that after his suspension, the CHR En Banc issued a resolution on January 16, 2007, suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI, stating that his suspension from the practice of law prevented him from assuming his post for want of eligibility. Atty. Baliga argued that his suspension from the practice of law should not include suspension from public office, as the acts leading to his suspension were not connected to his functions as CHR Regional Director. The Court noted his pleading without action, as it does not render advisory opinions.
On May 4, 2009, complainant Lingan wrote to the Court alleging that Atty. Baliga continued to practice law and discharge his functions as CHR Regional Director in violation of the suspension order. Lingan claimed that the CHR initially suspended Atty. Baliga but later reconsidered and merely admonished him after a motion for reconsideration, which Lingan was not served. Lingan argued that the functions of a CHR Regional Director necessarily require the practice of law, as the position requires being a lawyer in good standing and is designated as Attorney VI. Thus, during his suspension, Atty. Baliga was effectively a non-lawyer and disqualified from holding the position.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended requiring respondents to file motions to lift their suspension with certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Executive Judge, and for Atty. Baliga to submit a certification from the CHR stating he desisted from performing his functions as Regional Director during the suspension. It also recommended requiring Atty. Baliga and the CHR to comment on Lingan’s allegations.
In his comment, Atty. Baliga claimed his functions as Regional Director were “generally managerial” (e.g., supervising office operations, monitoring investigations, overseeing budgetary requirements) and did not require the practice of law, as the CHR has its own legal services unit. He asserted he faithfully complied with the suspension from the practice of law. The CHR, in its comment, argued that the penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a lawyer is separate from any penalty as a public official, and that disciplining its officials falls within its exclusive authority, but it would defer to the Court’s ruling.
Complainant Lingan, in reply, argued that Atty. Baliga’s admission of performing “lawyer-manager” functions constituted practice of law under the precedent of Cayetano v. Monsod, and that his failure to submit the required CHR certification showed disobedience. Lingan also noted that the CHR’s initial resolution suspending Atty. Baliga from office indicated that the position required the practice of law.

ISSUE

Whether a lawyer suspended from the practice of law must also desist from holding a government position that requires the authority to practice law during the period of suspension.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When a lawyer is suspended from the practice of law, they must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the suspension period. This includes holding a government position that requires the authority to practice law. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is not limited to courtroom appearances but includes activities where legal knowledge is essential. Citing Cayetano v. Monsod, the Court defined the practice of law as any activity requiring the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. The CHR Regional Director position, classified as Attorney VI, necessitates being a member of the bar and involves functions such as evaluating complaints, conducting investigations, issuing subpoenas, and making recommendations—all requiring legal expertise. Therefore, Atty. Baliga’s suspension from the practice of law disqualified him from performing the duties of CHR Regional Director during the suspension period. The Court required Atty. Baliga to submit the necessary certifications to prove compliance and warned that failure to do so could result in further disciplinary action. The CHR was also directed to ensure compliance with the Court’s orders, as it cannot alter or modify final and executory resolutions of the Supreme Court.