Title
Supreme Court
Reyes vs. Vitan
Case
A.C. No. 5835, 6051, 6441, 6955
Decision Date
Aug 18, 2010
Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan sought reinstatement after serving 30 months of successive suspensions for multiple administrative cases, conditional on compliance with court orders and proof of reformation.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 5835, 6051, 6441, 6955)

Background of Administrative Cases

Atty. Vitan was subjected to four separate administrative cases, each resulting in a suspension from the practice of law due to various offenses, including failure to render legal services and non-payment of debts. In A.C. No. 6441, he was suspended for six months and ordered to return P30,000 for services not rendered. In A.C. No. 5835, he faced another six-month suspension along with a financial penalty. The third case, A.C. No. 6955, led to a two-year suspension, which was subsequently reduced to six months due to partial payment of a debt. The fourth case, A.C. No. 6051, resulted in a one-year suspension.

Aggregated Penalties and Consequences

The cumulative effect of these suspensions equated to an aggregate period exceeding 30 months. According to jurisprudence, specifically A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857, suspensions are to be served successively. Atty. Vitan was obligated to demonstrate that he had complied with each of these penalties to be considered for reinstatement.

Petition for Reinstatement

After serving part of his penalties, Atty. Vitan sought reinstatement with a petition filed in July 2009, asserting that he had fulfilled his suspension periods and had reformed his conduct. Central to this petition was the requirement to prove that he had refrained from practicing law during all suspension periods. The Court emphasized adherence to the guidelines established in Ligaya Maniago v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios, regarding conditions necessary for lifting the suspensions.

Court’s Resolution and Conditions for Reinstatement

The Court resolved to allow Atty. Vitan's petition with stipulations that he submit a sworn statement verifying the completion of his aggregate suspension period and confirming non-engagement in legal practice during that time. Vitan was also required to present proof of repayment to complainants as mandated by the respective decisions in his administrative cases. Specifica

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.