A.C. No. 8313 - Ibana-Andrade vs. Paita-Moya

Complainants: Pilar Ibana-Andrade and Clare Sinforosa Andrade-Casilihan; Respondent: Atty. Eva Paita-Moya.
The case is administrative in nature and was initiated by the complainants alleging that Atty. Paita-Moya engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

On December 7, 2009, the Court’s First Division issued a Resolution referring the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation/decision within ninety (90) days upon receipt of records.
Subsequent to the investigation, on November 18, 2013, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline transmitted its Notice of Resolution along with the case records to the Supreme Court.
The IBP Board of Governors approved the Report and Recommendation on February 13, 2013, which formed the basis for the Court’s decision.

On October 3, 2007, Pilar Andrade (a stockholder and Treasurer of Mabini College Inc.) filed separate civil actions for injunction, mandamus, and damages. In these cases, respondents including respondent Atty. Eva Paita-Moya were involved, either in the capacity of counsel or as a party in related proceedings concerning alleged illegal suspension from employment.
Similar issues arose in an illegal dismissal case filed by Clare Sinforosa I. Andrade-Casilihan, where Atty. Paita-Moya again appeared as counsel for the respondent institution.
In another related labor case involving Alven Bernardo I. Andrade, the respondent’s continued appearance as counsel despite the suspension was similarly noted.

A Supreme Court resolution dated June 27, 2008, in Administrative Case No. 7494 (Wilson Cham vs. Atty. Eva Paita-Moya) suspended respondent from the practice of law for one month, effective upon receipt of the decision.
Records indicate that respondent received the suspension order on July 15, 2008 (as confirmed by Registry Return Receipt No. 2320).
Despite knowing of the suspension, respondent continued to file various pleadings and documents in multiple cases from June 2008 until May 2009.
Documentary evidence from several certifications issued by the clerks of various branches of the Regional Trial Court in Daet, Camarines Norte, confirmed her continued practice of law during the period of suspension.

Atty. Eva Paita-Moya contended that she began serving the suspension on May 20, 2009, alleging that she was unaware of the resolution suspending her.
She claimed to have filed an Urgent Motion to Lift the Suspension Order with the Supreme Court in December 2009, which remained unresolved as of her later Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings dated September 30, 2010.
Her sole defense rested on an assertion of ignorance regarding the suspension, despite the availability of the official Supreme Court resolution and other documentary evidence to the contrary.

The decision makes reference to the Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 51-2009, which reiterated the operative part of the June 27, 2008 resolution clearly stating the imposition of the suspension.
The Court also cited established guidelines and prior jurisprudence (e.g., Maniago v. De Dios, Molina v. Atty. Magat, Lingan v. Calubaquib) that underscore the importance of adhering to suspension orders and the consequences of willful disobedience.

Whether Atty. Eva Paita-Moya, by continuing to practice law after being formally suspended, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Whether respondent’s claim of ignorance regarding the suspension order is tenable in view of the documentary evidence indicating receipt of the said order.
Whether the actions of respondent, particularly her filing of pleadings and appearance in various cases despite the suspension, constitute willful disobedience of a Supreme Court order.
How should the extant guidelines on the imposition and effectuation of suspension orders under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court be applied in this case.