G.R. No. A.C. No. 8313; July 14, 2015
Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-Casilihan, Complainants, vs. Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-Casilihan filed an administrative case against Atty. Eva Paita-Moya. The complainants were involved in several cases against Mabini College, Inc. and its officers, where the respondent acted as counsel for the opposing parties. These cases included Civil Case No. 7617 for Injunction, Mandamus and Damages before the RTC of Daet, Camarines Norte, and illegal dismissal cases pending before the Court of Appeals. The complainants discovered that the Supreme Court, in a resolution dated June 27, 2008, in A.C. No. 7494 (Wilson Cham vs. Atty. Eva Paita-Moya), had suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one month, effective upon her receipt of the decision on July 15, 2008. An Office of the Bar Confidant certification confirmed the suspension had not been lifted. Despite this, the respondent continued to practice law. She filed various pleadings in Civil Case No. 7617 between July 15, 2008, and May 13, 2009, did not withdraw her appearances in the appellate cases, and continued practicing before four branches of the RTC in Daet, as evidenced by certifications from the clerks of court and a letter from the IBP Chapter President. The respondent claimed she started serving her suspension on May 20, 2009, and had filed an Urgent Motion to Lift the suspension, arguing she never received the suspending resolution.

ISSUE

Whether or not Atty. Eva Paita-Moya engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by willfully disobeying the Supreme Court’s suspension order.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is guilty of willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court, a violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court found her defense of ignorance of the suspension unmeritorious, as the records showed she received the suspension resolution on July 15, 2008, per OCA Circular No. 51-2009 and a Registry Return Receipt. Her continued practice, evidenced by filed pleadings and court certifications, constituted a willful violation. Applying precedent, the Court modified the IBP’s recommendation and suspended her from the practice of law for an additional period of six (6) months on top of her original one-month suspension, for a total of seven (7) months, with a warning that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty. The decision is immediately executory.