Case Digest (A.C. No. 5377)
Facts:
Victor C. Lingan v. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court (Peralta, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza and Reyes, JJ., concurring).Victor C. Lingan (complainant) initially charged Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga (respondents) before the Supreme Court in an administrative matter. In a June 15, 2006 resolution the Court found both respondents guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyers Oath for allowing their secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, thereby breaching Sections 245 and 246 of the Notarial Law; the Court suspended them from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years. Lingan moved for reconsideration seeking disbarment; the Court denied the motion on September 6, 2006.
After the Supreme Court's suspension, Atty. Baliga, who served as Regional Director/Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Regional Office for Region II, sought clarification (ex parte) and later filed a motion to lift the suspension (dated November 16, 2009). The CHR En Banc initially issued a January 16, 2007 resolution suspending Baliga from his CHR post because his suspension from practicing law rendered him ineligible to assume that post; Baliga later sought CHR reconsideration and the CHR on April 13, 2007 modified its action and admonished him instead.
In May 2009 Lingan wrote the Court alleging Baliga continued to perform duties as CHR Regional Director while under the Supreme Court suspension. The Court endorsed Lingan’s letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant, which reported (June 29, 2009) that the period of suspension had lapsed and recommended that respondents file motions to lift the suspension with certifications proving they desisted from practice during the suspension; specifically for Baliga the Bar Confidant recommended a CHR certification that he desisted from performing Regional Director functions. The Court ordered respondents to file motions to lift and required Baliga and the CHR to comment (resolution dated September 23, 2009).
Baliga filed a motion to lift and a comment asserting his CHR functions were managerial and did not require the practice of law; the CHR maintained that penalties as a bar matter are distinct from administrative discipline of public officials but deferred to the Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the CHR comment further and that resolution of Baliga’s motion be held in abeyance; the Court complied and later received the CHR’s reiteration (April 6, 2011) that the Regional Director post is managerial and does not require practice of law.
The Court granted Calubaquib’s motion to lift on February 17, 2010 but referred Baliga’s case back to the Bar Confidant for evaluation. After review, the Court found that Baliga had, in fa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga’s motion to lift his one-year suspension from the practice of law be granted?
- Did Atty. Baliga’s holding and performance of the functions of Commission on Human Rights Regional Director/Attorney VI during the period of suspension constitute the practice of law and thus violate the Supreme Court’s order?
- Could the Commission on Human Rights validly alter or nullify the Supreme Court’s suspension by modifying its own administrative sanction (i....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)