G.R. No. B.M. No. 139. October 11, 1984.
RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee, ATTY. PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., complainant, vs. ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.

FACTS

The Supreme Court, in a March 28, 1983 decision, had already found respondent Elmo S. Abad in contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law and fined him P500.00, which he paid. Abad had passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but had never been formally admitted to the Philippine Bar. Subsequently, complainant Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. filed a motion to circularize all Metro Manila courts that Abad was not authorized to practice, alleging he continued to do so. Abad opposed this motion, denying under oath that he had practiced law after the Court’s 1983 decision.
Given the conflicting factual allegations, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to conduct an investigation. The Clerk’s comprehensive report, incorporating documentary evidence, testimonial evidence, and a National Bureau of Investigation handwriting analysis, conclusively established that Abad had indeed continued to practice law. The evidence included his signatures on pleadings and verified reports of his court appearances in Quezon City and Pasig after the 1983 contempt ruling.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Elmo S. Abad should be held liable for contempt for continuing the unauthorized practice of law despite a prior Supreme Court ruling prohibiting him from doing so.

RULING

Yes. The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Clerk of Court, holding Abad liable for contempt. The legal logic is grounded on the Court’s inherent power to regulate the practice of law and punish acts constituting contempt, especially the defiance of its lawful orders. Abad’s continued practice, proven by substantial evidence, was a direct violation of the Court’s March 28, 1983 decision and a blatant disregard of judicial authority. His false denials under oath also exposed him to a separate charge for perjury.
The Court deemed the initial recommended penalty of a P2,000 fine insufficient given the gravity and persistence of the misconduct. Consequently, it imposed a heavier fine of P12,000, with a subsidiary imprisonment of twenty days for non-payment, and a stern warning of more severe punishment for any further violation. The Court also ordered the Court Administrator to circularize all courts nationwide that Abad is not authorized to practice law. Additionally, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to file a complaint for false testimony against Abad and required Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe, who had collaborated with Abad, to explain why he should not be disciplined for associating with an unauthorized practitioner.