Case Summary (A.C. No. 11346)
Factual Background
In the October 14, 2015 Decision, the Court suspended Basilio from the practice of law for one year, revoked his incumbent notarial commission, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately, after finding him guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Decision was circulated to all courts for information and implementation of the suspension order. Basilio, through counsel Atty. Edward L. Robea, claimed that he received the Decision on December 2, 2015, and thus argued that the suspension and related notarial penalties should have commenced on that date.
After the denial with finality of Basilio’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 20, 2016, concerns were raised to the Court through a letter inquiry dated June 9, 2016. Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon informed the Court that Basilio still appeared before Judge Venancio M. Ovejera of the Municipal Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac on April 26, 2016, despite the suspension order. The matter was referred to the OBC, which then recommended that Basilio be required to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for failing to immediately comply with the suspension order upon receipt of the Decision, and that he should submit a sworn statement with certifications from the Executive Judge’s Office of the court where he practiced and from his IBP Local Chapter, confirming that he had ceased and desisted from the practice of law, had not appeared as counsel, and had not practiced his notarial commission during the mandated period.
Following a further letter dated August 22, 2016 by Rambayon indicating that Basilio supposedly represented litigants in several cases before other courts, the Court in a Resolution dated October 5, 2016 required Basilio to show cause within ten days why he should not be held in contempt and to file a sworn statement with certifications affirming that he had fully served his suspension. Basilio complied with the show cause order by explaining that he did not immediately comply because he believed the suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration, and he invoked the guidelines in Maniago v. De Dios. Specifically, he argued that unless the Court explicitly stated immediate executory effect, a respondent had fifteen days to file a motion for reconsideration, and the denial would render the Decision final and executory. Basilio maintained that what was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial commission and the two-year prohibition, not the suspension from the practice of law.
In a Resolution dated March 15, 2017, the Court noted Basilio’s compliance and referred the matter to the OBC for evaluation. In a Report and Recommendation dated June 22, 2017, the OBC recommended that the directives to submit the required sworn statement with certifications be reiterated within ten days from notice. Before the Court acted on that recommendation, Basilio filed a Motion to Lift Suspension dated July 25, 2017, attaching an Affidavit of Cessation/Desistance from Practice of Law or Appearance in Court and stating that he commenced serving his penalty on July 9, 2016 and continued to serve until the present based on his receipt of the Order denying his motion for reconsideration. Basilio also stated that he ceased practicing his notarial commission from December 2, 2015 until the present.
To support his motion, Basilio attached certifications from the IBP-Tarlac Chapter and from the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, as well as certifications from RTC Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 and RTC Tarlac City, Branch 64, all attesting that Basilio had not appeared as counsel in those courts for the relevant period and had not practiced his notarial commission as a notary public.
Action and Recommendation of the OBC
In a Report and Recommendation dated September 13, 2017, the OBC recommended that Basilio be imposed an additional penalty of a fine of P10,000.00 for failure to immediately comply with the suspension order mandated in the October 14, 2015 Decision, and that the lifting of the suspension be held in abeyance pending the payment of the fine.
The OBC reasoned that Basilio received the Decision on November 3, 2015, so the one-year suspension from practice of law would have ended on November 3, 2016, while the two-year notarial revocation and prohibition would have ended on November 3, 2017. The OBC noted that Basilio served the suspension from practice of law only beginning July 9, 2016. Thus, the OBC concluded that Basilio failed to immediately serve the penalties and deserved the fine, despite his later cessation and desistance shown by the attached certifications.
Issues Before the Court
The Court framed the essential issues as whether Basilio’s suspension should now be lifted, and whether he should be fined for failure to immediately comply with the Court’s order of suspension.
The Court’s Ruling on Execution and Noncompliance
The Court emphasized that the dispositive portion of the October 14, 2015 Decision expressly stated that the penalties imposed for Basilio’s violations—(a) the one-year suspension from the practice of law, (b) the revocation of his incumbent notary commission, and (c) the two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public—were all “effective immediately.” The Decision’s wording placed the phrase “effective immediately” at the end of the enumerated series of penalties. From this explicit formulation, the Court concluded that compliance with the order of suspension, as well as the other penalties, should have commenced on the date Basilio received the Decision.
On the matter of receipt, the Court observed that while the OBC believed Basilio received the Decision on November 3, 2015, the records showed that Basilio, through Robea, actually received it on December 2, 2015, as indicated by the Registry Return Receipt, and that the Decision had been mailed on November 13, 2015. The Court held that Basilio’s repeated position in his motion for reconsideration compliance and related submissions—that he received the Decision on December 2, 2015—was consistent with the documentary record and should prevail.
Nevertheless, Basilio admitted that he served the suspension from practice of law only on July 9, 2016. The Court rejected his explanation that only the revocation and prohibition were immediately executory. It held that his excuse was incompatible with the Decision’s unequivocal wording. The Court reasoned that the clause “effective immediately” was clearly intended to qualify all three penalties, including the suspension from the practice of law. The Court further stated that the immediate effect of the suspension logically followed because the Court imposed all three penalties based on Basilio’s failure to comply with notarial duties under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and his violation of the lawyer’s sworn duties under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Court also held that Basilio could not rely on Maniago v. De Dios, because in Maniago the prin
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 11346)
- This disciplinary matter arose from a Decision dated October 14, 2015 that found Atty. Christopher A. Basilio guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- The Court resolved (a) the Motion to Lift Suspension filed by Basilio on July 19, 2017, and (b) the Report and Recommendation dated September 13, 2017 of the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The Complainant was Atty. Benigno Bartolome.
- The Respondent was Atty. Christopher A. Basilio.
- The Court had previously issued an October 14, 2015 Decision imposing multiple penalties.
- The Court denied Basilio’s motion for reconsideration with finality in a Resolution dated April 20, 2016.
- After reports of non-compliance, the Court required Basilio to show cause and to submit sworn compliance certifications in Resolutions dated October 5, 2016 and in subsequent OBC evaluations.
- Basilio later moved to lift his suspension through a Motion to Lift Suspension dated July 25, 2017.
- The Court finally resolved the motion and the OBC recommendation through the present Resolution dated January 31, 2018.
Key Factual Background
- The October 14, 2015 Decision suspended Basilio from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his incumbent notary commission “if any,” and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, all “effective immediately.”
- The Decision also warned that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
- The Court circulated the Decision to all courts for information and implementation of the suspension order.
- Basilio, through counsel Atty. Edward L. Robea, claimed receipt of the Decision on December 2, 2015, which Basilio argued should mark the commencement of his suspension and notarial penalties.
- The Court denied Basilio’s motion for reconsideration in April 20, 2016, but Basilio was later observed to have appeared before Judge Venancio M. Ovejera of the Municipal Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac on April 26, 2016.
- The matter was investigated through letters and referrals involving the Court, the OCJ, and the OBC.
- In July 27, 2016, the OBC recommended that Basilio be required to show cause for non-immediate compliance and to submit a sworn statement with certifications from the Office of the Executive Judge and the IBP Local Chapter, confirming cessation of practice and notarial work during the mandated period.
- In August 22, 2016, a further letter reported that litigants were allegedly represented by Basilio in several cases assigned to Judge Bernar D. Fajardo of an RTC branch.
- On October 5, 2016, the Court required Basilio to show cause within ten days why he should not be held in contempt and to file sworn certifications affirming full service of his suspension.
- Basilio’s explanation was that he believed the suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration, invoking the guideline in Maniago v. De Dios.
- In a March 15, 2017 Resolution, the Court noted Basilio’s compliance and referred the matter to the OBC for evaluation.
- In a June 22, 2017 OBC Report and Recommendation, the OBC required Basilio to file sworn compliance certifications within ten days from notice.
- While the Court had not yet acted on the June 22, 2017 Report, Basilio filed a Motion to Lift Suspension on July 25, 2017 with an Affidavit of Cessation/Desistance.
- Basilio asserted that he commenced serving his penalty on July 9, 2016 and ceased and desisted from notarial practice on Decem