Case Digest (A.C. No. 11032)
Facts:
Re: Order Dated 01 October 2015 in Criminal Case No. 15-318727-34, Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Manila, A.C. No. 11032, January 10, 2023, Supreme Court En Banc, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.The respondent is Atty. Severo L. Brillantes, who was found liable for violations of Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in a Resolution dated 02 March 2020 and was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months. The dispositive portion of that Resolution ordered that upon receipt the respondent shall immediately serve his suspension, formally manifest its commencement, and furnish copies to all courts, quasi‑judicial bodies and adverse parties where he had entered an appearance.
Respondent received a copy of the 02 March 2020 Resolution on 08 February 2021 and, on 09 February 2021, filed a Manifestation with Plea for Mercy seeking reduction of the suspension to one month; that plea was denied by this Court in a Resolution dated 14 June 2021. Thereafter respondent filed a Manifestation with Motion to Lift Order Suspending Respondent from the Practice of Law (dated 09 February 2021), asserting that he had desisted from practice after receipt, had notified adverse parties and the courts by letters and by withdrawals of appearance (copies of which he attached as emails), and that he had served the six‑month suspension period; he cited health issues for any delay in notification and sought prompt reinstatement to attend to his clients.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC), in a Report and Recommendation dated 12 October 2021, recommended lifting respondent’s suspension, finding respondent had served his suspension from 08 February 2021 to 08 August 2021. The OBC noted respondent had not procured certifications from the courts where he practiced or from his local IBP chapter but recommended that the sworn statement be deemed sufficient under the guidelines in Maniago v. De Dias, 631 Phil. 139 (2010). The OBC also observed inconsistent post‑Maniago practice — some cases required third‑party certifications while others treated the sworn statement alone as sufficient — and cited COVID‑19, health risks to senior lawyers, and economic burdens as reasons to dispense with the additional certification requirement.
Acting on the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the submission of a sworn statement of compliance sufficient to lift an administrative order suspending a lawyer from the practice of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)