Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83090:57077&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:18:19+00:00

Document:
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB AND JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this court orders a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to practice law.
In the resolution2 dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility3 and of the Lawyer’s Oath.4 Respondents allowed their secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial Law. This court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years.
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration,7 praying that respondents be disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the resolution8 dated September 6, 2006, this court denied complainant Lingan’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that on July 14, 2006, complainant Lingan wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter’s suspension from the practice of law.
On May 8, 2009, this court received a letter from complainant Lingan. In his letter14 dated May 4, 2009, Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga continued practicing law and discharging his functions as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director, in violation of this court’s order of suspension.
In its report and recommendation20 dated June 29, 2009, the Office of the Bar Confidant found that the period of suspension of Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga had already lapsed. It recommended that respondents be required to file their respective motions to lift order of suspension with certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Executive Judge of the court where they might appear as counsel and state that they desisted from practicing law during the period of suspension.
The Office of the Bar Confidant further recommended that Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human Rights be required to comment on complainant Lingan’s allegation that Atty. Baliga continued to perform his functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the practice of law.
In compliance with this court’s order, Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga filed their respective motions to lift order of suspension.28 Atty. Baliga also filed his comment on complainant Lingan’s allegation that he continued performing his functions as Regional Director during his suspension from the practice of law.
In reply42 to Atty. Baliga’s comment, complainant Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga again disobeyed this court. Atty. Baliga failed to submit a certification from the Commission on Human Rights stating that he was suspended from office and desisted from performing his functions as Regional Director.
As to Atty. Baliga’s claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as Regional Director and only performed generally managerial functions, complainant Lingan countered that Atty. Baliga admitted to defying the order of suspension. Atty. Baliga admitted to performing the functions of a “lawyer-manager,”43 which under the landmark case of Cayetano v. Monsod44 constituted practice of law. Complainant Lingan reiterated that the position of Regional Director/Attorney VI requires the officer “to be a lawyer [in] good standing.”45 Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga, he had supervision and control over Attorneys III, IV, and V. Being a “lawyer-manager,” Atty. Baliga practiced law while he held his position as Regional Director.
With respect to Atty. Baliga’s claim that he was in good faith in reassuming his position as Regional Director, complainant Lingan countered that if Atty. Baliga were really in good faith, he should have followed the initial resolution of the Commission on Human Rights suspending him from office. Atty. Baliga did not even furnish this court a copy of his motion for reconsideration of the Commission on Human Right’s resolution suspending him from office. By “playing ignorant on what is ‘practice of law’, twisting facts and philosophizing,”46 complainant Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga “[no longer has that] moral vitality imperative to the title of an attorney.”47 Complainant Lingan prayed that Atty. Baliga be disbarred.
On February 17, 2010, this court lifted the order of suspension of Atty. Calubaquib.48 He was allowed to resume his practice of law and perform notarial acts subject to compliance with the requirements for issuance of a notarial commission.
In the resolution53 dated January 12, 2011, this court held in abeyance the resolution of Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift one-year suspension. The Commission on Human Rights was ordered to comment on Atty. Baliga’s claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as Regional Director.
The issue for our resolution is whether Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift order of suspension should be granted.
We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court’s order of suspension. We, therefore, suspend him further from the practice of law for six months.
Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod,60 this court cited the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and agreed that work rendered by lawyers in the Commission on Audit requiring “[the use of] legal knowledge or legal talent”61 is practice of law.
The Commission on Human Rights is an independent office created under the Constitution with power to investigate “all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights[.]”62 It is divided into regional offices with each office having primary responsibility to investigate human rights violations in its territorial jurisdiction.63 Each regional office is headed by the Regional Director who is given the position of Attorney VI.
These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public71 — officers who are necessarily members of the bar.72 Investigating human rights complaints are performed primarily by the Commission’s legal officer.73 Discussing immediate courses of action and protection remedies and reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer require the use of extensive legal knowledge.
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney — a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice law.74 When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional Director, the Commission on Human Rights did not violate Atty. Baliga’s right to due process. First, he was only suspended after investigation by the Commission on Human Rights Legal and Investigation Office.78 Second, the Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to be heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration.
Atty. Baliga’s performance of generally managerial functions was not supported by the record. It was also immaterial. He held the position of Commission on Human Rights Regional Director because of his authority to practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold that position.
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constituted practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as Regional Director.
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 do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat,79 this court suspended further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law for six months for practicing his profession despite this court’s previous order of suspension.
We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his position as Regional Director despite lack of authority to practice law.
In his Motion for Reconsideration dated March 15, 2007, respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga prays before the Honorable Commission to recall and annul his suspension as Regional Director/Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights – Regional Office No. II, per 16 January 2007 Commission en Banc Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013.
The grounds relied upon the motion are not sufficient to convince the Commission that Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga is totally blameless and should not suffer the appropriate penalty for breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer’s oath.
The Commission, in the exercise of its authority to discipline, is concerned with the transgression by Atty. Baliga of his oath of office as government employee. As records have it, the Commission granted Atty. Baliga authority to secure a commission as a notary public. With this, he is mandated to act as a notary public in accordance with the rules and regulations, to include the conditions expressly set forth by the Commission.
With the findings clearly enunciated in the Supreme Court resolution in SC Administrative Case No. 5277 dated 15 June 2006, the Commission cannot close its eyes to the act of Atty. Baliga that is clearly repugnant to the conduct of an officer reposed with public trust.
This is enough just cause to have this piece of word, short of being enraged, and censure Atty. Baliga for having contravened the conditions of his commission as a notary public. What was granted to Atty. Baliga is merely a privilege, the exercise of which requires such high esteem to be in equal footing with the constitutional mandate of the Commission. Clearly, Atty. Baliga should keep in mind that the Commission exacts commensurate solicitude from whatever privilege the Commission grants of every official and employee.
The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April 13, 2007. This resolution caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as Regional Director/Attorney VI despite lack of authority to practice law.
We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law.81 The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and other issuances, modify or defy this court’s orders of suspension from the practice of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has the power to appoint its officers and employees,82 it can only retain those with the necessary qualifications in the positions they are holding.
WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga from the practice of law for six (6) months. Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and six (6) months of suspension from the practice of law, effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a copy of this resolution.
SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant, and the Commission on Human Rights.
* Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta was designated as Acting Chairperson of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1707 dated June 17, 2014, vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in view of latter's official trip to Nairobi, Kenya on June 22 to 25, 2014 and to South Africa on June 26 to 29, 2014.
** Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., was designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014 in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
*** Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was designated as Acting Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1704 dated June 17, 2014, vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in view of the latter's official trip to Nairobi, Kenya on June 22 to 25, 2014 and to South Africa on June 26 to 29, 2014.
1Rollo, pp. 558–566. This motion is dated November 16, 2009.
SECTION 245. Notarial register. – Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefor.
SECTION 246. Matters to be entered therein – The notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of the execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the instrument, the fees collected by hint for his services as notary in connection therewith, and; when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof, and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year. The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.
When a notary public shall protest any draft, bill of exchange, or promissory note, he shall make a full and true record in his notarial register of all his proceedings in relation thereto, and shall note therein whether the demand or the sum of money therein mentioned was made, of whom, when, and where; whether he presented such draft, bill, or note; whether notices were given, to whom, and in what manner; where the same was made, and when, and to whom, and where directed; and of every other fact touching the same.
At the end of each week the notary shall certify in his register the number of instruments executed, sworn to, acknowledged, or protested before him; or if none such, certificate shall show this fact.
10 Id. at 322–325, Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013.
13 Id. at 346, Resolution dated July 16, 2007.
15 Id. at 407, Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-045 dated April 13, 2007.
19 Id. at 396, 1st Indorsement dated May 13, 2009.
28 Id. at 478–482 and 558–566.
44 278 Phil. 235 (1991) [Per J. Paras, En Banc].
62 Consti., art. XIII, sec. 18 (1); Cariño v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991, 204 SCRA 483, 494 [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc].
63 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 7.
64 This set of guidelines was approved in April 2012. Available at (visited March 21, 2014).
66 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 3, sec. 4.
67 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 6.
68 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 9.
69 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 11.
70 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 17.
71 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987, book I, chap. 10, sec. 41.
72 Consti., Art. VIII, sec. 7; REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917, book I, title IV, chap. 11, art. I, sec. 233.
73 GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES, AND THE PROVISION OF CHR ASSISTANCE, rule 4, sec. 6.
74 RULES OF COURT, rule 138, sec. 1.
79 A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
81 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5 (5).
82 CONST., art. XIII, sec. 18 (10).

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.