TL;DR

The Supreme Court penalized Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa with an additional two-year suspension from legal practice and permanent disqualification from being a notary public for continuing to practice law while already serving a one-year suspension. This decision underscores the Court’s firm stance against lawyers who defy disciplinary orders, emphasizing that practicing law is a privilege, not a right, and that disobedience to lawful court orders undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system. Lawyers must strictly adhere to court sanctions, as defiance can lead to severe penalties, including disbarment.

Defiance in Davao: When a Lawyer’s Disregard for Suspension Leads to Harsher Penalties

This case revolves around Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, who faced disbarment charges for notarizing fictitious documents. Initially, the Supreme Court, in a December 7, 2015 Resolution, suspended him from law practice for one year, revoked his notarial commission, and disqualified him from reappointment for two years. However, instead of complying, Atty. Sederiosa continued to practice law and notarize documents. This blatant disregard for the Court’s order led to a new complaint and the present decision, which further escalated his penalties. The central legal question is: What are the repercussions for a lawyer who willfully disobeys a Supreme Court suspension order by continuing to practice law?

The factual backdrop reveals that Atty. Sederiosa was initially sanctioned for notarizing spurious documents, including extrajudicial settlements and deeds of sale executed by individuals who were already deceased or did not personally appear before him. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a one-year suspension and revocation of his notarial commission, which the Supreme Court adopted. However, complainant Emilio Cansino, Jr. discovered that Atty. Sederiosa was still notarizing documents even after the suspension order. Evidence presented included a certification from the Regional Trial Court of Davao City confirming Atty. Sederiosa’s active notarial commission, his commission documents dated January 8, 2016, and an Affidavit of Loss notarized by him on August 8, 2016.

Atty. Sederiosa claimed he had not officially received the December 7, 2015 Resolution, but the registry return receipt proved otherwise, showing receipt by his representative, Deo Zuniga, on January 29, 2016. The Court emphasized that a registry receipt serves as prima facie evidence of delivery and receipt. The Supreme Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege granted by the Court, and suspension means a lawyer must abstain from any activity requiring legal knowledge. Notarization, explicitly, is considered practice of law, requiring good standing in the Philippine Bar, as stipulated in Section 1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice:

SECTION 1. Qualifications. – A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.

To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude.

By continuing to notarize documents and maintain a law firm signboard, Atty. Sederiosa clearly engaged in the unauthorized practice of law during his suspension. This act of defiance constitutes willful disobedience to a lawful order of the Supreme Court, a grave offense under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

Sec. 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.

The Court highlighted that Atty. Sederiosa’s actions violated his Lawyer’s Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including rules against unlawful conduct, upholding the integrity of the legal profession, and candor to the court. While acknowledging precedents where similar misconduct resulted in additional six-month suspensions, the Court, citing Zafra III v. Atty. Pagatpatan, where disbarment was imposed for prolonged defiance, opted for a more severe penalty than initially recommended by the OBC. The Court emphasized that disbarment, though the most severe sanction, is warranted in cases of serious misconduct that undermine the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system. Ultimately, the Supreme Court imposed an additional two-year suspension and permanent disqualification from notarial practice to underscore the gravity of disobeying its orders and to protect public confidence in the legal profession.

FAQs

This case serves as a stern reminder to all members of the bar that compliance with Supreme Court orders is non-negotiable. The integrity of the legal profession hinges on respect for judicial authority and adherence to ethical standards. Defiance will not be tolerated and will be met with appropriate sanctions to maintain the public’s trust in the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cansino v. Sederiosa, A.C. No. 8522, October 06, 2020