EUSTAQUIO vs.

 ATTY. NAVALES
[A.C. No. 10465. June 8, 2016.] PERLAS-BERNABE, J  : p

Atty. Navales is GUILTY of Section 27, Rule 138 of ROC.

Complainants alleged being owners of an apartment located at 4-D Cavite St., Barangay Paltok, SFDM, Quezon City,
which they leased to respondent under a Contract of Lease.
But, respondent violated the terms and conditions of the contract when he failed to pay monthly rentals in the amount
of P139,000.00 and to vacate the leased premises despite repeated oral and written demands. 
Case was refered to barangay conciliation, where amicable settlement was agreed upon, whereby respondent
promised to pay complainants the amount of P131,000.00 on July 16, 2009 and to vacate the leased premises on
July 31, 2009.
Respondent reneged on his obligations under the settlement agreement, constraining complainants to file an
ejectment case against him before (MeTC).

Complainants filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), that
respondent miserably failed to exemplify honesty, integrity, and respect for the laws when he failed and refused to
fulfil his obligations to complainants. 
Despite notices,  respondent failed to file his Answer, to appear in the mandatory conference, and to file his position
paper.
Meanwhile, MTC: ejectment case in favor of the complainants and, ordered respondent to vacate the leased
premises and to pay complainants the following amounts:
 (a) P139,000.00 representing unpaid rentals as of July 2009; (b) further rental payments of P8,000.00 per month starting August 17, 2009 until
the actual surrender of said premises to complainants; (c) attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00; and (d) cost of suit.
During the pendency of the case, respondent was appointed as an Assistant City Public Prosecutor of Quezon City. 

IBP's Report and Recommendation: respondent administratively liable suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent displayed
unwarranted obstinacy in evading payment of his debts, by his numerous promises to pay which he eventually
reneged on. In this light, Respondent violated Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1 of the  (CPR) and should be held
administratively liable.
IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation.
Events Following the Finality of Respondent's Suspension:
MTC’s certification : respondent has been appearing before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor since
September 2014 up to the present.
The OBC's Report and Recommendation
In a Report and Recommendation: respondent be further suspended from the practice of law and from holding the
position of Assistant City Prosecutor for a period of (6) months, thus, increasing his total suspension period to one (1)
year, effective immediately. since respondent received the order of suspension against him and did not move for its
reconsideration, such order attained finality after the lapse of 15 days therefrom.
As such, he should have already served his suspension. In this relation, the OBC ratiocinated that since respondent
was holding a position which requires him to use and apply his knowledge in legal matters and practice of
law, i.e., Assistant City Prosecutor, he should have ceased and desisted from acting as such.
Despite the certification , respondent never complied with his order of suspension. In view thereof, the OBC
recommended to increase respondent's suspension from the practice of law and from holding the position of
Assistant City Prosecutor for an additional period of six (6) months.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.
HELD: Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the OBC and adopts the same in its entirety.
It is settled that the Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. As such, when the Court
orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, he must desist from performing all functions requiring the
application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding a position in
government requiring the authority to practice law.  The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It includes performing
acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.
HERE: OBC correctly pointed out that the Court's Resolution suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of (6) months
became final and executory (15) days after respondent received a copy of the same. Thus, respondent should have already commenced
serving his (6)-month suspension. However, respondent never heeded the suspension order against him as he continued discharging his
functions as an Assistant City Prosecutor for Quezon City, as evidenced by the Certification issued by MeTC-Br. 38 stating that respondent has
been appearing before it as an Assistant City Prosecutor since September 2014 up to the present.

Section 9 of  (RA) 10071,  "Prosecution Service Act of 2010," provides the powers and functions of prosecutors:
Section 9. Powers and Functions of the Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor . — The provincial prosecutor or the
city prosecutor shall:
(a) Be the law officer of the province of the city officer, as the case may be;
(b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and
ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made
and filed against the persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he/she or any of his/her assistants shall
receive the statements under oath or take oral evidence of witnesses, and for this purpose may
by subpoena summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him/her, and the attendance or evidence of
an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to any trial court; and
(c) Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in the
courts at the province or city and therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal actions, subject
to the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 5 hereof.

The government office of Assistant City Prosecutor requires its holder to be authorized to practice law. Hence,
respondent's continuous discharge of his functions as such constitutes practice of law and a clear defiance of the
Court's order of suspension against him.
Section 27, Rule 138 of ROC, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court and willfully appearing as an
attorney without authority to do so — acts which respondent is guilty of in this case — are grounds for disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law, to wit:
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor . — A member of the bar may
be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Anent the proper penalty to be imposed on respondent, the Court, in Lingan v. Calubaquib,  Feliciano v. Bautista-Lozada,  and Ibana-Andrade
v. Paita-Moya,  consistently imposed an additional six (6)-month suspension from the practice of law to erring lawyers who practiced law
despite being earlier suspended. Under the foregoing circumstances, the Court deems it proper to mete the same penalty to respondent in
addition to the earlier six (6)-month suspension already imposed on him, as recommended by the OBC. Thus, respondent's total period of
suspension from the practice of law — and necessarily, from the holding the position of Assistant City Prosecutor as well — should be fixed at
one (1) year.
NOTE: "[d]isbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to
preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this
kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle. The Court, in the exercise of its
sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming the errant lawyer is
possible."