Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
PERALTA , J : p
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the O ce of the Bar Con dant, for
their information and guidance, and let it be entered in respondent's personal
records. HIaTDS
SO ORDERED . 4
On May 4, 2006, the Court denied with nality Atty. Lozada's motion for
reconsideration. 5
However, on June 5, 2007, in an action for injunction with prayer for issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction docketed as Civil Case
No. 101-V-07 entitled "Edilberto Lozada, et al. vs. Alvin S. Feliciano, et al.," where
complainant was one of the respondents, complainant lamented that Atty. Lozada
appeared as counsel for the plaintiff and her husband, Edilberto Lozada, and actively
participated in the proceedings of the case before Branch 75 of the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela City. To prove his allegation, complainant submitted certi ed true copies of the
minutes of the hearings, dated June 12, 2007, July 3, 2007 and July 6, 2007, wherein Atty.
Lozada signed her name as one of the counsels, 6 as well as the transcript of stenographic
notes showing that Atty. Lozada conducted direct examination and cross-examination of
the witnesses during the trial proceedings. 7
On May 14, 2011, however, the IBP-Board of Governors resolved to adopt and
approve with modi cation the report and recommendation of the IBP-CBD such that it
recommended instead that Atty. Lozada be suspended from the practice of law for three
(3) months.
RULING
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, willful
disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law:
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;
grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
o ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such o ce, 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 to do so . The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
15
Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty, but this Court recognizes the
fact that it is part of the Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out
and extend a helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus,
considering that Atty. Lozada's actuation was prompted by her affection to her husband
and that in essence, she was not representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it
proper to mitigate the severeness of her penalty.
Following the recent case of Victor C. Lingan v. Atty. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy
P. Baliga , 16 citing Molina v. Atty. Magat , 17 where this Court suspended further
respondents from the practice of law for six (6) months for practicing their profession
despite this court's previous order of suspension, we, thus, impose the same penalty on
Atty. Lozada for representing her husband as counsel despite lack of authority to practice
law.
Disbarment 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. 18
WHEREFORE , premises considered, Atty. Carmelita S. Bautista-Lozada is found
GUILTY of violating Section 27, 1 9 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and is hereby
SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months from the practice of law, with a WARNING
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe penalty.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the O ce of the Bar Con dant
and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their information and guidance. The O ce of
the Bar Con dant is DIRECTED to append a copy of this Decision to respondent's record
as member of the Bar.
Atty. Lozada is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of her receipt of this
Decision, so that we can determine the reckoning point when her suspension shall take
effect.
This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Villarama, Jr., Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
5. Id. at 14-29.
6. Id. at 30-38.
7. Id. at 39-322.
8. Id. at 323.
9. Id. at 329-335.
10. Id. at 332.
11. Id. at 339.
14. Id.
15. Emphasis ours.