Canonoy vs. Atty. Guibone

A lawyer's unilateral or voluntary cessation from the practice of law does not constitute service of the penalty of suspension, which commences only upon the lawyer's receipt of the Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty and is lifted only upon submission of a sworn statement of compliance attesting that the full period has been served and that the lawyer desisted from practice during the entire duration.

Andy Dela Victoria Canonoy and his five siblings, as heirs of the late Angelita Dela Victoria Canonoy, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jose B. Guibone for notarizing a falsified Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate dated September 22, 2015, despite the alleged non-appearance of the heirs and the forged signatures appearing therein. The investigation also uncovered that respondent maintained multiple notarial offices, allowed his staff to sign documents on his behalf, used multiple notarial seals, and notarized documents upon presentation of only a community tax certificate — acts respondent admitted committing. The Court had previously found respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, imposing suspension from the practice of law for a total of two years, revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and a fine of PHP 100,001.00.

Andy Dela Victoria Canonoy and his five siblings, as heirs of the late Angelita Dela Victoria Canonoy, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Jose B. Guibone arising from his notarization of a falsified Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate dated September 22, 2015. The heirs alleged that they did not appear before respondent and that the signatures appearing in the document were forged. Evidence showed that the heirs were in different locations in the Philippines and abroad at the time of the purported notarization.

The investigation further revealed that respondent maintained multiple notarial offices, allowed his staff to sign documents on his behalf, used multiple notarial seals, and notarized documents upon the presentation of only a community tax certificate. Respondent admitted committing these acts.

On February 25, 2025, the Court En Banc issued an unsigned Resolution finding respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Court imposed the following sanctions: suspension from the practice of law for one year for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in bad faith, with revocation of his notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years; a fine of PHP 100,001.00 for another violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in bad faith; and suspension from the practice of law for another period of one year for making untruthful statements in an affidavit submitted as evidence in court. Respondent received this unsigned Resolution on May 13, 2025.

Thereafter, respondent filed a Manifestation dated June 25, 2025, claiming that he voluntarily ceased practicing law on January 30, 2024, upon receipt of a Notice of Resolution from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On this basis, he sought to resume the practice of law on January 30, 2026. Complainant opposed the Manifestation in a Comment dated July 17, 2025, arguing that the period of suspension should be reckoned only from respondent's receipt of the Court's Resolution and not from receipt of an IBP Resolution, which is merely recommendatory. Complainant further alleged that respondent continued to engage in the practice of law during 2024 and 2025, including by serving as Legal Unit Head and Regional Legal Officer of the Department of Education–CARAGA, as purportedly shown by official publications, memoranda, and public postings.

• Commencement of Suspension: Complainant argued that the period of suspension should be reckoned only from respondent's receipt of the Court's Resolution imposing the penalty, and not from receipt of an IBP Resolution, which is merely recommendatory and does not attain finality absent action by the Court.
• Continued Practice During Alleged Cessation: Complainant alleged that respondent continued to engage in the practice of law during 2024 and 2025, including by serving as Legal Unit Head and Regional Legal Officer of the Department of Education–CARAGA, as purportedly shown by official publications, memoranda, and public postings.

• Voluntary Cessation as Service of Penalty: Respondent maintained that he voluntarily ceased practicing law on January 30, 2024, upon receipt of a Notice of Resolution from the IBP, and accordingly sought to resume the practice of law on January 30, 2026, on the claim that his alleged cessation should be credited as service of the penalty of suspension.

• Commencement of Suspension: Whether respondent's alleged voluntary cessation from the practice of law on January 30, 2024, sufficed to be credited as service of the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

• Commencement of Suspension: No. A lawyer's unilateral cessation from the practice of law does not constitute service of the penalty of suspension, which takes effect only upon the lawyer's receipt of the Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty. The lifting of the suspension is not automatic but requires the filing of a sworn statement of compliance.

• Commencement of Suspension: Resolutions of the IBP are merely recommendatory in nature and do not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur; thus, respondent could not rely on receipt of an IBP resolution to fix the commencement of his suspension. Pursuant to the guidelines laid down in Re: Order dated 01 October 2015 in Criminal Case No. 15-318727-34 against Atty. Brillantes, suspension takes effect only upon the lawyer's receipt of the decision or resolution imposing the penalty, and the lifting of suspension is not automatic but is effected only upon the lawyer's submission of a sworn statement of compliance attesting that the period has been fully served and that the lawyer desisted from practice during the entire duration. The Court further relied on Calixto vs. Atty. Balleros, which stressed that lawyers may not benefit from their own acts or omissions in a manner that would allow them to escape disciplinary action, and that the commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and may not be made dependent on his or her convenience. Applying these principles, respondent's suspension began only upon his receipt of the Court's Resolution dated February 25, 2025, on May 13, 2025. His claim of voluntary cessation on January 30, 2024, could not be given legal effect, and the period of suspension could not be reckoned from any earlier date. Because respondent had not yet fully served the penalty and had not filed the required sworn statement of compliance, his Manifestation seeking to resume practice on January 30, 2026, lacked basis.

• Commencement of Suspension from the Practice of Law — The penalty of suspension from the practice of law takes effect only upon the lawyer's receipt of the Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty. A lawyer's unilateral or voluntary cessation from the practice of law does not constitute service of the penalty. The commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and may not be made dependent on his or her convenience. IBP resolutions are merely recommendatory and do not attain finality absent the Court's action; until the Court acts and the lawyer is duly notified, no penalty of suspension may be deemed to have commenced.

• Lifting of Suspension Not Automatic — The lifting of a suspension from the practice of law is not automatic. It is effected only upon the lawyer's submission of a sworn statement of compliance to the proper offices, attesting that the full period of suspension has been served and that the lawyer has desisted from the practice of law during the entire duration thereof. Administrative suspension is lifted instantly upon the filing of such sworn statement, and no further confirmation from the Court is required. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by suspended lawyers under oath shall constitute a ground for a more severe punishment, or even disbarment.

• "As consistently held by the Court, the service of the penalty of suspension is reckoned only from the lawyer's receipt of the Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty. A lawyer's unilateral cessation from the practice of law does not constitute service of the penalty." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the controlling rule that voluntary cessation does not count as service of suspension, which is the decisive ground for denying respondent's Manifestation.

• "The commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and may not be made dependent on his or her convenience." — This formulation, drawn from Calixto vs. Atty. Balleros, articulates the policy rationale behind the rule: an erring lawyer must not be allowed to manipulate the timing of disciplinary sanctions to his or her advantage.

• "Administrative suspension is lifted instantly upon the filing of a sworn statement of compliance, and that no further confirmation from the Court is required." — This passage, citing Valdez vs. Atty. Hipe, defines the procedural mechanism for lifting suspension and assigns to the Office of the Bar Confidant the task of recording compliance filings.

• Re: Order dated 01 October 2015 in Criminal Case No. 15-318727-34 against Atty. Brillantes, 932 Phil. 724 (2023) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case for the guidelines governing the commencement and lifting of suspensions from the practice of law, specifically that suspension takes effect upon receipt of the Court's resolution and that lifting requires a sworn statement of compliance.

• Calixto vs. Atty. Balleros, 947 Phil. 1 (2023) — Followed. The Court applied this case's holding that lawyers may not benefit from their own acts or omissions to escape disciplinary action, and that the commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer.

• Valdez vs. Atty. Hipe, 946 Phil. 301 (2023) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the rule that administrative suspension is lifted instantly upon filing of a sworn statement of compliance without need for further Court confirmation, and that false statements in such compliance may warrant disbarment.

• Katipunan, Jr. vs. Atty. Carrera, 871 Phil. 169 (2020) — Cited for the proposition that IBP resolutions are merely recommendatory in nature and do not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Respondent was found guilty of violating these rules in bad faith for maintaining multiple notarial offices, allowing staff to sign documents on his behalf, using multiple notarial seals, and notarizing documents upon presentation of only a community tax certificate, resulting in suspension, revocation of notarial commission, disqualification, and a fine.

• Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability — Respondent was found guilty of violating this Code, including for making untruthful statements in an affidavit submitted as evidence in court, resulting in an additional one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., Singh, and Villanueva, JJ., concurred.