GR 146783; (July, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 146783 ; July 29, 2002
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF MAXIMINO GAMIDO; MAXIMINO B. GAMIDO, petitioner, vs. NEW BILIBID PRISON, respondent.
FACTS
This case originated from a petition for habeas corpus filed by Maximino B. Gamido. However, the petitioner himself filed a “Motion to Withdraw Petition” on February 12, 2001, which the Court granted in a Resolution dated March 12, 2001. Subsequently, on January 17, 2002, a “Motion for Relief” was filed by Espiridion J. Dela Cruz, who represented himself as counsel for petitioner Gamido. This motion prompted the Court to examine two key issues: first, whether the filing of the Motion for Relief constituted forum-shopping, and second, whether Dela Cruz was authorized to appear as counsel given allegations he was not a member of the Philippine Bar.
During the hearing, it was established that Dela Cruz had no authority from petitioner Gamido to file the Motion for Relief, as Gamido had already voluntarily withdrawn his own petition. Furthermore, Dela Cruz represented himself as an attorney, using a law office address and indicating an IBP number in his pleadings. The Office of the Bar Confidant certified that Dela Cruz was not a member of the Philippine Bar, and the IBP number he used was spurious. Although Dela Cruz asked for forgiveness, the Court proceeded to rule on the matters before it.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the Motion for Relief filed by Dela Cruz was valid, and (2) whether Dela Cruz could be held liable for unauthorized practice of law and for misrepresenting himself as a member of the Bar.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Relief. The legal logic is straightforward: the underlying petition for habeas corpus had already been withdrawn by the petitioner himself, and the Court had granted that withdrawal. Therefore, the case was already closed. The subsequent Motion for Relief was filed without the authority of the petitioner and was devoid of merit, as there was no active petition to grant relief from. This disposed of the first issue.
On the second issue, the Court found Dela Cruz guilty of indirect contempt. The practice of law is a privilege restricted to those who have been duly admitted to the Bar. By holding himself out as an attorney, using a spurious IBP number, and filing pleadings in that capacity, Dela Cruz engaged in unauthorized practice of law. This act constituted an improper conduct that obstructed the administration of justice and misled the Court, warranting a finding of indirect contempt under the Rules of Court. As a penalty, he was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or, in default thereof, to suffer imprisonment for one month and one day. The Court issued a stern warning against any repetition of such acts.