AC 6281; (January, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 6281, January 15, 2020
Valentin C. Miranda, Complainant, vs. Atty. Macario D. Carpio, Respondent.
FACTS
On September 26, 2011, the Court suspended respondent Atty. Macario D. Carpio from the practice of law for six months and ordered him to return the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 to complainant Valentin C. Miranda. In a Resolution dated July 28, 2014, the Court required the respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply and to file a sworn statement to lift his suspension order. The respondent, in his explanations, contended that he was always ready to return the title but the complainant failed to personally claim it, and that he should not be made to return it as he secured it from the court, not from the complainant. He also argued that financial necessity forced him to accept a case before his suspension was lifted, believing the suspension was automatically lifted. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended denying his motion to lift the suspension and imposing a more severe penalty.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Macario D. Carpio should be held administratively liable for his failure to comply with the Court’s order to return the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 0-94 and for practicing law while under suspension.
RULING
Yes. The Court denied the respondent’s motion to lift the order of suspension and further suspended him from the practice of law for another six months. The Court found his contentions absurd and untenable. His disobedience to the Court’s order violated his lawyer’s oath to obey legal orders and conduct himself with fidelity to the courts. His obligation to return the title was personal and could not be passed to the complainant. His claim of advanced age and sickness did not excuse compliance, as his law office could effect delivery. His acceptance of a case while suspended due to financial necessity and his belief in automatic lifting were invalid, as lifting is not automatic and requires a Court order. The respondent was directed to return the title and warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.