Tan v. Gumba

Tomas P. Tan Jr. v. Atty Haide V.
Gumba
Facts: Atty. Gumba failed to comply in filing a sworn statement
but instead filed a complaint in the RTC against the
In August 1999, respondent obtained P350,000.00 OCA, OBC and Atty. Paraiso for suspending her from
loan from Tomas P. Tan Jr. with an interest of 12% per the practice of law even if the administrative case
annum. Respondent executed an undated Deed of against her was still pending with the IBP. In its
Absolute Sale in favor of the complainant under the Answer, the OBC argued that the RTC had no
name of respondent’s father, Nicasio Vista. Attached to jurisdiction over the action and declared in a Report
said deed was a special power of attorney (SPA) that during and after the period of her suspension,
executed by respondent’s parents authorizing her to respondent filed several pleadings and appeared in
apply for a loan with a bank to be secured by the courts. The OBC opined that for failing to comply with
subject property. Complainant and respondent agreed the order of her suspension, respondent deliberately
that if the latter failed to pay the loan, complainant may refused to obey a lawful order of the Court.
register the Deed of Absolute Sale with the register of
deeds. Respondent failed to pay her loan and despite Issue:
repeated demands, she failed to settle her obligation.
Complainant attempted to register the Deed of Whether respondent is administratively liable for
Absolute Sale but to no vail because the aforesaid SPA engaging in the practice of law during the period of
only covered the authority of respondent to mortgage her suspension and prior to an order of the Court
the property to a bank, and not to sell it. lifting such suspension?
Due to the foregoing facts, complainant filed an
administrative complaint against respondent. Ruling:
Commissioner Jose I. de la Rama issued a
recommendation that respondent be suspended from Service of a judgment or resolution must be done only
the practice of law for one year after a mandatory personally or by registered mail, and that mere showing
conference. The IBP-BOG (Board of Governors) of a downloaded copy of the October 5, 2011
resolved to adopt and approve the report and Resolution to respondent is not a valid service, the fact,
recommendation of said commissioner. The Court however, that respondent was duly informed of her
issued a resolution dated October 5, 2011, which suspension remains unrebutted. As stated above, she
sustained the findings and conclusion of the IBP but filed a motion for reconsideration on the October 5,
reduced the penalty from one (1) year to six (6) months. 2011 Resolution, and the Court duly notified her of the
Such resolution remained unserved and on August 13, denial of said motion. It thus follows that respondent’s
2012 resolution, the Court deemed it as served upon six month suspension commenced from the notice of
respondent after the March 14, 2012 resolution was the denial of her motion for reconsideration on
also returned unserved. November 12, 2012 until May 12, 2013.
Judge Armea of the MTCC Branch 2 of Naga City The Court notified respondent of her suspension.
inquired from the Office of the Court Administration However, she continued to engage in the practice of
whether she could continue representing her clients law by filing pleadings and appearing as counsel in
and appear in courts and she also asked if the decision courts during the period of her suspension. Moreover,
relating to the respondent’s suspension, which was the lifting of the suspension order is not automatic, it is
downloaded from the internet constitutes sufficient necessary that there is an order from the Court lifting
notice. Judge Armea’s inquiry arose because the suspension of a lawyer to practice law. To note, in
respondent represented a party in a case pending in Maniago, the Court explicitly stated that a suspended
her court and the counsel of the opposing party lawyer shall, upon the expiration of one’s suspension,
questioned her legal standing. Respondent insisted file a sworn statement with the Court, and that such
that her service of any pleading or judgment cannot be statement shall be considered proof of the lawyer’s
made through the internet since she had not received compliance with the order of suspension.
any authentic copy of the Court’s October 5, 2011. The
OBC (Office of the Bar Confidant) referred the Oct. 5 In this case, the Court directed respondent to comply
2011 resolution to the OCA for widest dissemination to with the guidelines for the lifting of the suspension
all courts in which OCA issued and disseminated order against her by filing a sworn statement on the
circular pertaining to the said resolution addressed to matter. Instead, she filed a complaint against the OCA,
the courts, the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor, OBC and a certain Atty. Paraiso with the RTC. Having
PAO, and the IBP. done so, respondent violated a lawful order of the
Court, that is, to comply with the guidelines for the
Meanwhile, IBP-BOG resolved to adopt and approve lifting of the order of suspension against her.
the recommendation of Commissioner Cachapero to
dismiss the complaint since there is no rule allowing the RECAP:
service of judgments through the internet. In its
statement, the OBC stressed that respondent received 1. She filed pleadings and appeared in court as
the August 13, 2012 resolution denying her motion for counsel during the period of her suspension,
reconsideration on the October 5, 2011 resolution, and prior to the lifting of such order of her
thus, the effectivity of respondent’s suspension was suspension;
from November 12, 2012 until May 12, 2013. The OBC 2. She did not comply with the Court’s directive
pointed out that the suspension is not automatically for her to file a sworn statement in compliance
lifted by mere lapse of suspension. It is necessary that with the guidelines for the lifting of the
an order be issued by the Court lifting the suspension, suspension order.
and until such time that the Court has lifted the order of
her suspension. The OBC recommended her to file a Atty. Haide V. Gumba was suspended from the
sworn statement with motion to lift order of her practice of law for an additional period of six (6)
suspension. months from her original six (6) months
suspension.

Tan v. Gumba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan v. Gumba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan v. Gumba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tomas P. Tan Jr. v. Atty Haide V.

You might also like