Bartolome vs. Basilio

Where a disciplinary decision expressly states that the penalties are “effective immediately,” all the penalties—including suspension from the practice of law—take effect upon the respondent’s receipt of the decision; failure to immediately serve the suspension constitutes indirect contempt.

Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome was the complainant in A.C. No. 10783 against Atty. Christopher A. Basilio. In a Decision dated October 14, 2015, the Court found Basilio guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and imposed a one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his incumbent notarial commission, and a two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public, all effective immediately. The Decision was circulated to all courts for implementation, and Basilio’s motion for reconsideration was later denied with finality. The present Resolution resolves Basilio’s Motion to Lift Suspension and the OBC’s recommendation on his compliance.

Atty. Benigno T. Bartolome filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Christopher A. Basilio, docketed as A.C. No. 10783. On October 14, 2015, the Court rendered a Decision finding Basilio guilty of violating the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, all effective immediately, and warned him that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Decision was circulated to all courts for implementation.

Basilio, through his counsel Atty. Edward L. Robea, claimed to have received a copy of the Decision on December 2, 2015. The Registry Return Receipt showed that Robea received it on that date, and that the Decision was mailed on November 13, 2015. Basilio filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution dated April 20, 2016.

In a letter dated June 9, 2016, Atty. Sotero T. Rambayon inquired from the Court about the status of Basilio’s suspension, alleging that Basilio still appeared before Judge Venancio M. Ovejera of the Municipal Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac on April 26, 2016. The letter was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). In a letter-reply dated July 25, 2016, the OBC informed Rambayon that the Decision had been circulated to all courts and that Basilio’s motion for reconsideration had been denied with finality. In a Report and Recommendation dated July 27, 2016, the OBC recommended that Basilio be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for not immediately complying with the suspension order upon receipt of the Decision. He was also required to file a sworn statement, with certifications from the Office of the Executive Judge and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Local Chapter, affirming that he had ceased and desisted from the practice of law, had not appeared in court as counsel, and had not practiced his notarial commission during the mandated period. In another letter dated August 22, 2016, Rambayon informed the Court that five cases before Judge Bemar D. Fajardo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, supposedly listed Basilio as counsel for the litigants.

In a Resolution dated October 5, 2016, the Court noted Rambayon’s August 22, 2016 letter and required Basilio to show cause within ten days why he should not be held in contempt for not immediately complying with the suspension order and to file a sworn statement with certifications affirming that he had fully served his penalty of suspension. Basilio complied and explained that he did not immediately comply because he believed his suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration, citing Maniago vs. De Dios. He maintained that only the revocation of his notarial commission and the two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public were immediately executory. In a Resolution dated March 15, 2017, the Court noted Basilio’s compliance and referred the case to the OBC for evaluation, report, and recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation dated June 22, 2017, the OBC recommended that the directives in the October 5, 2016 Resolution be reiterated, particularly the filing of a sworn statement with certifications attesting to full service of suspension within ten days from notice. Before the Court could act on this report, Basilio filed a Motion to Lift Suspension on July 25, 2017, attaching an Affidavit of Cessation/Desistance from Practice of Law or Appearance in Court. In his motion, Basilio stated that he commenced serving his penalty on July 9, 2016 and continued to serve it until the present upon receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration, and that he immediately ceased and desisted from his notarial commission on December 2, 2015 until the present. He attached certifications from the IBP-Tarlac Chapter dated July 12, 2017; the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67 dated July 14, 2017; the RTC of Camiling, Tarlac, Branch 68 dated July 17, 2017; and the RTC of Tarlac City, Branch 64 dated July 20, 2017, all attesting to his cessation from law practice and/or notarial practice for the stated periods.

In a Report and Recommendation dated September 13, 2017, the OBC recommended that Basilio be meted an additional penalty of a fine of ₱10,000.00 for his failure to immediately comply with the suspension order and that the lifting of the order of suspension be held in abeyance pending payment of the fine. The OBC maintained that Basilio, through his counsel, received the Decision on November 3, 2015, so the one-year suspension should have ended on November 3, 2016 and the two-year notarial prohibition on November 3, 2017. It observed, however, that Basilio served his suspension from law practice only beginning July 9, 2016 and desisted from notarial practice on December 2, 2015, as shown by the certifications, hence the recommended fine. The Court later found that records showed Basilio actually received the Decision on December 2, 2015, not November 3, 2015, because the Registry Return Receipt signed by Robea reflected that date and the Decision was mailed on November 13, 2015; Basilio had consistently maintained December 2, 2015. Basilio himself admitted serving his suspension only on July 9, 2016.

• Maniago and Abeyance: Basilio explained that he did not immediately comply with the suspension order because he believed his suspension was held in abeyance pending resolution of his motion for reconsideration, citing Maniago vs. De Dios, which states that unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has fifteen days within which to file a motion for reconsideration, and the denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory.
• Scope of Immediate Effectivity: Basilio maintained that what was immediately executory was only the revocation of his notarial commission and the two-year prohibition of being commissioned as a notary public.
• Service of Penalty: In his Motion to Lift Suspension, Basilio stated that he commenced serving his penalty on July 9, 2016 and continued to serve it until the present upon his receipt of the order denying his motion for reconsideration; he also stated that he immediately ceased and desisted from the practice of his notarial commission on December 2, 2015 until the present, and attached certifications from the IBP-Tarlac Chapter and various courts attesting to his cessation from law and notarial practice.

• Lifting of Suspension: Whether Basilio’s suspension should now be lifted.
• Fine for Non-Compliance: Whether Basilio should be fined for his failure to immediately comply with the order of the Court.

• Lifting of Suspension: No, not yet. The lifting of the order of suspension from the practice of law is held in abeyance pending Basilio’s payment of the ₱10,000.00 fine and presentation of proof thereof.
• Fine for Non-Compliance: Yes. Basilio is guilty of indirect contempt and is fined ₱10,000.00 for failing to immediately comply with the suspension order, which was effective immediately upon receipt of the October 14, 2015 Decision.

• Lifting of Suspension: The dispositive portion of the October 14, 2015 Decision stated that the one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of incumbent notarial commission, and two-year prohibition from being commissioned as a notary public were all “effective immediately.” Compliance with the suspension and all other penalties should have commenced on the day Basilio received the Decision. Although the OBC stated receipt on November 3, 2015, the records showed that Basilio, through Robea, actually received the Decision on December 2, 2015, as per the Registry Return Receipt, and the Decision was mailed on November 13, 2015; Basilio consistently maintained December 2, 2015, and this was consistent with the documents. Basilio admitted serving his suspension only on July 9, 2016. The clause “effective immediately” was placed at the end of the enumerated penalties to qualify all three, including suspension. The immediate effectivity of the suspension logically proceeded from the fact that all three penalties were imposed because Basilio failed to comply with his duties as a notary public under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice and his sworn duties as a lawyer under Rule 1.01, Canon 1. Basilio could not rely on Maniago vs. De Dios because that case held that a decision is immediately executory upon receipt if the decision so indicates, as this Decision did. Thus, the lifting of the suspension was held in abeyance pending payment of the fine.
• Fine for Non-Compliance: Basilio’s failure to immediately serve the penalties upon receipt was contumacious. A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court or improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt. The OBC recommended a fine of ₱10,000.00, and the Court imposed it, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The lifting of suspension remained in abeyance pending payment and proof.

• Immediate Effectivity of All Penalties in a Disciplinary Decision — When a disciplinary decision states that the penalties are “effective immediately,” the phrase qualifies all the penalties enumerated, including suspension from the practice of law. The suspension therefore takes effect upon the respondent’s receipt of the decision, and compliance must begin from that date. Applied: Basilio’s suspension should have commenced on December 2, 2015, but he began serving it only on July 9, 2016.
• Maniago vs. De Dios Rule on Finality — Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt, the respondent has fifteen days within which to file a motion for reconsideration; denial of the motion renders the decision final and executory. However, where the decision expressly states that it is effective immediately, it is immediately executory upon receipt. Applied: Basilio could not invoke Maniago because the October 14, 2015 Decision expressly stated “effective immediately.”
• Indirect Contempt for Disobedience to a Lawful Court Order — A person guilty of disobedience of or resistance to a lawful order of a court, or who commits improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, may be punished for indirect contempt. Applied: Basilio’s failure to immediately comply with the suspension order upon receipt was contumacious and warranted a ₱10,000.00 fine.

• “WHEREFORE, the Court finds 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. Accordingly, the Court hereby SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one (1) year; REVOKES his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITS him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately. He is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.” — This is the dispositive portion of the October 14, 2015 Decision quoted by the Court; it supplies the express “effective immediately” language that the Court interpreted as covering all three penalties.
• “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.” — This states the ratio decidendi on why Basilio’s suspension, and not only the notarial penalties, was immediately effective.
• “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.” — This fixes the date from which Basilio’s compliance should have begun and anchors the finding of noncompliance.
• “He is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. The lifting of the order of suspension from the practice of law is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending his payment of the fine and presentation of proof thereof.” — This is the dispositive penalty and the condition for lifting the suspension.

• Bartolome vs. Basilio, 771 Phil. 1 (2015) — The prior Decision in this administrative case, quoted by the Court, which imposed the one-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and two-year prohibition, all effective immediately. The present Resolution enforced and interpreted that Decision.
• Maniago vs. De Dios, 631 Phil. 139 (2010) — Cited by Basilio for the rule that unless the Court explicitly states the decision is immediately executory upon receipt, respondent has fifteen days to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court held it did not aid Basilio because the Decision expressly stated immediate effectivity.
• Capitol Hills Golf and Country Club vs. Sanchez, 728 Phil. 58, 69 (2014) — Cited in the footnote for the definition of indirect contempt: disobedience of or resistance to a lawful court order or improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.
• Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. vs. Funk, A.C. No. 9094, January 13, 2014 — Cited in the footnote as basis for the ₱10,000.00 fine imposed on Basilio.

• 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice — Basilio was found guilty of violating these Rules in the October 14, 2015 Decision; the penalties, including suspension from law practice, were imposed for his failure to comply with his duties as a notary public.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Basilio was found guilty of violating this Rule; the penalties were also imposed for his violation of his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Court relied on the nature of these violations to explain why all three penalties were effective immediately.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Noel Gimenez Tijam concurred. Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe authored the Resolution.