Specific Rules of Practice: Discipline of Lawyers

A.C. No. 7472 (2010)

Maniago v. De Dios
Nachura, J.

Summarized by Sophia Sy

Maniago filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. De Dios for practicing law
despite having an outstanding suspension order. Atty. De Dios claims that she has
already served her 6-month suspension which the court even recognized in a Resolution.
The Court, noting OBC’s recommendation, issued certain guidelines in lifting an order
suspending a lawyer form the practice of law.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Ligaya Maniago – complainant, Atty. Lourdes De Dios – respondent

FACTS
1. Maniago filed a criminal case against Hiroshi Miyata who was represented by
Atty. De Dios. The latter was also Miyata’s counsel in two other civil cases.
2. Complainant learned from RTC staff that Atty. De Dios had an outstanding
suspension order from SC since 2001 and thus prohibited to appear in court.
3. Complainant filed this case seeking the disbarment of respondent.
4. Respondent claims that she was given a 6-month suspension (due to an
administrative case filed by Dina de Guzman) which she already served from
May 16, 2001 to Nov. 16, 2001.
5. She filed a Manifestation on Oct 19, 2001 informing the court that she is
resuming her practice on Nov. 17, 2001 w/c she did.
6. Mar. 15 2007 – Judge Josefina Farrales of RTC erroneously issued a directive
ordering her to desist from practicing law and revoking her notarial commission
for 2007-2008. Respondent complied in deference to the order.
7. Apr. 23, 2007 – The Court, acting on respondent’s Motion for Clarification,
issued a resolution resolving to deem Atty. De Dios to have served her 6-
month suspension and her recommencement of practice on Nov. 17, 2001
as proper pursuant to a Resolution dated Jan. 30, 2002
8. Sept. 12, 2007 – Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to whom the matter was
referred to by the court, stated in a letter1 that the lifting of the suspension order

1Letter was OBC’s reply to Office of Court Administrator’s inquiry regarding the status of Atty. De Dios.
Such letter was adverted to by complainant in her affidavit submitted to OBC.

1
 was not automatic following the Court’s previous pronouncements2.
9. Accdg. to OBC, a suspended lawyer must first present proof(s) of his
compliance by submitting certifications from the IBP and from the Executive
Judge that he has indeed desisted from the practice of law during the
period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court, after evaluation, and upon a
favorable recommendation from the OBC, will issue a resolution lifting the
order of suspension and thus allow him to resume the practice of law. Such
procedure was overlooked when Atty. De Dios was allowed to resume practice
w/o submitting the required certifications.
10. OBC recommended that the Court adopt a uniform policy regarding the matter.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. What is the proper procedure for lifting a suspension order of a lawyer?
 The Court resolved to issue the following guidelines to be observed in the matter
of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of
law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory
upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion
for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the
decision final and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a
Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant,
stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and
has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of
the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has
pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared
as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath
shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or
disbarment, as may be warranted.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
So ordered.

2In J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. and Spouses Jesus and Rosario K. Mercado v.
Atty. Eduardo de Vera and Jose Rongkales Bandalan, et al. and Atty. Eduardo C. de Vera v. Atty. Mervyn
G. Encanto, et al.