SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 12487. December 4, 2019.]

FE EUFEMIA E. VALMONTE, complainant , vs. ATTY. JOSE C.

QUESADA, JR., respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

Before the Court is a Complaint 1 for disbarment dated November 11,

2014 filed by complainant Fe Eufemia Estalilla-Valmonte against respondent
Atty. Jose C. Quesada, Jr. for violation of the Supreme Court's directive
suspending him from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year pursuant
to its December 2, 2013 Resolution in Dagala v. Atty. Quesada, Jr. 2
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Complainant alleged that she is the wife of Marcelo A. Valmonte, Jr.;
that her husband was charged with the murder of her brother, Manolo
Estalilla (Manolo); that the murder case, docketed as Crim. Case No. 4573-
BG, entitled People of the Philippines v. Marcelo A. Valmonte, Jr. , was raffled
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 33; that in
March 2014, respondent entered his appearance in the said case as private
prosecutor on behalf of the common-law wife of Manolo; that respondent
filed several pleadings in the said case; and that complainant later learned
that respondent entered his appearance and filed pleadings in court while he
was serving his suspension from the practice of law.
Despite due notice, respondent failed to file a comment and to appear
during the mandatory conference before the Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). 3
After considering the evidence presented by complainant, the
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP submitted his Report and
Recommendation 4 dated June 30, 2017 recommending that respondent be
meted the penalty of suspension for another year from the practice of law
for his unauthorized practice of law. AHDacC

Finding the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating

Commissioner fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable
laws and jurisprudence, the Board of Governors of the IBP, on June 28, 2018,
resolved to adopt the same. 5
The Court's Ruling
The Court affirms the findings of the IBP, but with modifications as to
its recommendations.
On December 2, 2013, the Court promulgated a Resolution in the case
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of Dagala suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of one
year effective from the date of his receipt of the said Resolution for failing to
exercise the required diligence in handling the labor case of his client. 6 In
the absence of any contrary evidence, a letter duly directed and mailed is
presumed to have been received in the regular course of mail. 7 Here,
respondent is presumed to have duly received the said Resolution.
In March 2014, or three months after the promulgation of the
Resolution suspending him from the practice of law, respondent filed the
following pleadings before the RTC of Bauang, La Union, in Crim. Case No.
4573-BG:
1) Notice of Appearance with Motion 8 on March 20, 2014;
2) Comment on the Opposition 9 on May 9, 2014; and
3) Motion to Withdraw Appearance as Private Prosecutor 10 on May
23, 2014.
Respondent's acts of signing and filing of pleadings for his client in
Crim. Case No. 4573-BG months after the promulgation of the Resolution are
clear proofs that he practiced law during the period of his suspension. And
as aptly found by the IBP, respondent's unauthorized practice of law is
considered a willful disobedience to a lawful order of the court, which under
Section 27, 11 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court is a ground for disbarment or
suspension.
As to the penalty imposed, a review of recent jurisprudence reveals
that the Court has consistently imposed an additional suspension of six
months on lawyers who continue to practice law despite their suspension. 12
However, considering that the Court had already imposed upon
respondent the ultimate penalty of disbarment for his gross misconduct and
willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the court in an earlier complaint
for disbarment filed against him in Zarcilla v. Quesada, Jr. , 13 the penalty of
additional six months suspension from the practice of law can no longer be
imposed upon him. The reason is obvious: "[o]nce a lawyer is disbarred,
there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice
law." 14 cAaDHT

But while the Court can no longer impose the penalty upon the
disbarred lawyer, it can still give the corresponding penalty only for the sole
purpose of recording it in his personal file with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC), which should be taken into consideration in the event that
the disbarred lawyer subsequently files a petition to lift his disbarment. 15
In addition, the Court may also impose a fine 16 upon a disbarred
lawyer found to have committed an offense prior to his/her disbarment as
the Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses
committed by a disbarred lawyer while he/she was still a member of the Law
Profession. 17 In fact, by imposing a fine, the Court is able "to assert its
authority and competence to discipline all acts and actuations committed by
the members of the Legal Profession." 18

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 All told, the Court finds respondent guilty of unauthorized practice of
law. And although he has already been disbarred, the Court, nevertheless,
deems it proper to give the corresponding penalty of six months suspension
from the practice of law for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal
file in the OBC. The Court, likewise, considers it necessary to impose upon
respondent a penalty of fine in the amount of PhP40,000.00. 19
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby FINDS respondent Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. GUILTY of unauthorized practice of law and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months.
However, considering that he has already been disbarred, this penalty can
no longer be imposed but nevertheless should be considered in the event
that he should apply for the lifting of his disbarment. ACCORDINGLY, and
IN VIEW OF HIS CONTINUING DISBARMENT, a penalty of FINE in the
amount of PhP40,000.00 is imposed upon him. IDSEAH

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant to be entered into the records of respondent Atty. Jose C.
Quesada, Jr. Copies shall likewise be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, which shall circulate
the same to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
A.B. Reyes, Jr. ** and Inting, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on official business.
Zalameda, *** J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* On official business.

** Per Special Order No. 2750 dated November 27, 2019.

*** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2727 dated October 25,
2019; on official leave.

1. Rollo , pp. 5-7.

2. 722 Phil. 447 (2013).

3. Rollo , p. 31.
4. Id. at 61-63.

5. Id. at 59-60.
6. Dagala v. Atty. Quesada Jr., supra note 2.

7. Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., 710 Phil. 82, 87 (2013).
8. Rollo , pp. 8-10.
9. Id. at 11-13.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 10. Id. at 14-15.
11. 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.

12. Paras v. Paras, 807 Phil. 153, 162 (2017).

13. A.C. No. 7186, March 13, 2018. In that case, although the allegations of
falsification or forgery against respondent were not proven, the Court,
nevertheless, found respondent guilty of violating the notarial law for
notarizing a deed of sale and a joint-affidavit despite the fact that the parties
therein could no longer execute the said documents and appear before
respondent since they have long been deceased as evidenced by their death
certificates. The Court also noted in the said case that respondent's act of
notarizing the said deed of sale appeared to have been done to perpetuate a
fraud.
14. Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho, A.C. No. 10498, September 4, 2018.

15. Id.
16. Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017, 837 SCRA 145.
17. Domingo v. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018, 852 SCRA 360.

18. Id. at 381.

19. Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, supra note 16.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com