View full case

TOMAS P. TAN v. GUMBA

FACTS:

In August 1999, respondent obtained a loan of P350,000.00 with complainant. As security, respondent executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over a property and attached a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing her to apply for a loan with a bank. It was agreed that if respondent failed to pay the loan, complainant could register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds. Respondent failed to pay the loan and despite demands, she did not settle her obligation. Complainant attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale but was unable to do so because the SPA only covered the authority to mortgage the property, not sell it. Complainant filed a complaint against respondent, alleging misrepresentation and dishonesty, and that respondent used her position as a lawyer to secure the loan. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a one-year suspension from the practice of law. The Supreme Court, upon review, reduced the penalty to six months of suspension. The Court's resolution on the suspension was served on respondent after several attempts. Judge Armea from the Municipal Trial Court wrote a letter, inquiring if the downloaded decision from the internet was sufficient notice of respondent's suspension. Respondent argued that she had not received an authentic copy of the Court's resolution. The IBP later dismissed the complaint against respondent, stating that judgments cannot be served through the internet. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) stated that respondent's suspension was effective until May 12, 2013, and the suspension could only be lifted by an order from the Court. The OBC recommended that respondent file a motion to lift the order of her suspension and that the IBP explain why they should not be sanctioned for dismissing the complaint against respondent. The Court directed respondent to comply with guidelines for lifting the suspension and issued a certification that the order of suspension had not yet been lifted.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the respondent violate the lawful order of the Court by engaging in the practice of law during her suspension period?

  2. Did the respondent fail to comply with the Court's directive to file a sworn statement in compliance with the guidelines for the lifting of her suspension order?

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent violated the lawful order of the Court by engaging in the practice of law during her suspension period.

  2. Yes, the respondent failed to comply with the Court's directive to file a sworn statement in compliance with the guidelines for the lifting of her suspension order.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The practice of law is a privilege subject to the Court's regulatory power

  • Lawyers must comply with rigid standards, including mental fitness, morality, and compliance with the rules of the legal profession

  • Suspension from the practice of law is subject to specific guidelines for lifting the suspension

  • Lawyers must file a Sworn Statement stating that they have desisted from practicing law during the period of suspension

  • A suspended lawyer must desist from performing all functions that require the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension.

  • Engaging in the practice of law during the suspension period amounts to unauthorized practice and a violation of a lawful order of the Court.

  • The lifting of a suspension order is not automatic; there must be an order from the Court lifting the suspension and the suspended lawyer must file a sworn statement as proof of compliance with the suspension order.

  • Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, such as failing to comply with a suspension order, may be a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.