A.C. No. 8313 - PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE AND CLARE SINFOROSA ANDRADE-CASILIHAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, Atty. Eva Paita-Moya is found guilty of gross misconduct and hereby SUSPENDED for one month from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt of this Decision . She is warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely. On 15 July 2008, Atty. Moya received the said resolution as per Registry Return Receipt No. 2320 . (Emphases supplied) [15] Moreover, the Office of the Bar Confidant issued a Certification dated 8 May 2009 that the suspension of Atty. Paita-Moya in A.C. No. 7494 had not yet been lifted . [16] We had laid down guidelines in Maniago v. De Dios , IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby RESOLVED that the following guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of law: 1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty; 2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory; 3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension; 4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; 5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order of suspension; 6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted. [17] This case is not without precedent. [18] Previously, we had already stated the standard for discipline upon erring lawyers who continue practicing despite being suspended by the Court, viz : Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law: SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to