bartolome vs basilio

January 31, 2018

A.C. No. 10783

ATTY. BENIGNO T. BARTOLOME,, Complainant vs. ATTY. CHRISTOPHER A. BASILIO, Respondent

FULL TEXT

facts:

In the October 14, 2015 Decision4 (the Decision), the Court suspended Basilio from the practice of law for one (1) year, revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) 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. He is further warned that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.5

The Decision was circulated to all courts for the information and implementation of the order of suspension.6 Basilio, thru his counsel, Atty. Edward L. Robea (Robea), claimed to have received a copy of the Decision on December 2, 2015,7 hence, his suspension from the practice of law, as well as the revocation of his notarial commission and prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public should have all effectively commenced on the same date. In a Resolution8 dated April 20, 2016, the Court denied with finality Basilio's motion for reconsideration9 of the Decision.
However, in a letter10 dated June 9, 2016, Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon (Rambayon) inquired from the Court about the status of Basilio's suspension, alleging that the latter still appeared before Judge Venancio M. Ovejera of the Municipal Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac on April 26, 2016. The letter was subsequently referred to the OBC for appropriate action.11 In a letter-reply12 dated July 25, 2016, the OBC informed Rambayon that the Decision had already been circulated to all courts for implementation, and that Basilio's motion for reconsideration had been denied with finality by the Court.

Basilio explained that he did not immediately comply with the suspension order because he believed that his suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration of the Decision, following the guidelines in Maniago v. De Dios18(Maniago), wherein it was stated that "[u]nless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has [fifteen (15)] days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory."19 On this score, he maintained that what was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial commission and the two (2)-year prohibition of being commissioned as a notary public.20

Basilio filed a Motion to Lift Suspension (Motion)23 on July 25, 2017, attaching an Affidavit of Cessation/Desistance from Practice of Law or Appearance in Court.24 In his motion, Basilio stated that he "has commenced to serve his penalty on July 9, 2016 and continue to serve his penalty until the present upon his receipt of the Order of the [Court] denying his Motion for Reconsideration."25 He further mentioned that he "immediately ceased and desisted from the practice of his notarial commission on December 2, 2015 until the present."26 Basilio likewise attached to his Motion the following: (a) Certification27 dated July 12, 2017 from the IBP-Tarlac Chapter, affirming that Basilio "has not appeared in court beginning July 9, 2016 to July 9, 2017" and "has not practiced his notarial commission as notary public from December 2, 2016 [up to] the present"; (b) Certification28 dated July 14, 2017 from the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, attesting that Basilio has ceased and desisted from the practice of law and has not practiced his notarial commission from December 2, 2016 up to the present; and (c) Certifications29 dated July 17, 2017, from the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 and July 20, 2017, from the RTC of Tarlac City, Branch 64, both affirming that Basilio did not appear as counsel in said courts from July 9, 2016 up to the present.

Issue:

Did Basilio correctly comply with his suspension from practice of law.

Ruling:

No

asilio received the Decision on November 3, 2015. However, records show that Basilio, through Robea, actually received the Decision on December 2, 2015, as per the Registry Return Receipt, and that the same was merely mailed on November 13 (not 3), 2015.32 The OBC - albeit still inaccurately - must have thought that this latter date was to be considered as the date of receipt. In fact, Basilio, in his motion for reconsideration and compliance to the Court's October 5, 2016 Resolution,33 has repeatedly maintained that he received the Decision on December 2, 2015. This averment appears to be consistent with the documents on record and hence, ought to prevail.

This notwithstanding, Basilio himself admitted that he served his suspension only on July 9, 2016, proffering that he believed that what was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial commission and the two (2)-year prohibition against being commissioned as a notary public. Unfortunately, the Court cannot accept such flimsy excuse in light of the Decision's unequivocal wording.

Irrefragably, the clause "effective immediately" was placed at the end of the enumerated series of penalties to indicate that the same pertained to and therefore, qualified all three (3) penalties, which clearly include his suspension from the practice of law. The immediate effectivity of the order of suspension - not just of the revocation and prohibition against his notarial practice - logically proceeds from the fact that all three (3) penalties were imposed on Basilio as a result of the Court's finding that he failed to comply with his duties as a notary public, in violation of the provisions of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, and his sworn duties as a lawyer, in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, with the Decision's explicit wording that the same was "effective immediately", there is no gainsaying that Basilio's compliance therewith should have commenced immediately from his receipt of the Decision on December 2, 2015. On this score, Basilio cannot rely on the Maniago ruling as above-claimed since it was, in fact, held therein that a decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof if the decision so indicates, as in this case.