Cansino vs. Sederiosa

A lawyer who continues to engage in the practice of law, including notarial practice, during a period of court-ordered suspension is administratively liable for willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, warranting additional suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.

Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, who was a friend and law school classmate of their brother Paulino Cansino. The complaint alleged that Atty. Sederiosa conspired in the execution and notarization of fictitious and simulated documents, including an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate purportedly executed by their deceased father, and several deeds of sale transferring hereditary and conjugal property rights to Paulino. The administrative case proceeded through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) investigating commissioner and Board of Governors before reaching the Supreme Court, which had already imposed a one-year suspension and revocation of notarial commission in a December 7, 2015 Resolution. The present decision arose from Atty. Sederiosa's motion for reconsideration and the subsequent discovery that he had continued practicing law and notarizing documents despite the suspension order.

Complainants Teodoro L. Cansino and Emilio L. Cansino, Jr. filed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, a friend and law school classmate of their brother Paulino Cansino. They alleged that Atty. Sederiosa notarized several spurious documents despite the death of their parents and/or the non-personal appearance of the affiants. These documents included an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate dated January 3, 1995 purportedly executed by their father Emilio Cansino, Sr. — already deceased since August 1, 1991 — and their mother Victoria L. Cansino, which adjudicated and partitioned between themselves the properties of their deceased daughter Belen, consisting of a 600-square-meter parcel of land in Mintal, Davao City, a 300-square-meter land in GSIS Heights Matina, Davao City, and accounts receivables due from Emilio, Jr. in the amount of P247,000.00. Also notarized were a Deed of Sale of Hereditary Rights dated January 3, 1995 whereby Victoria sold the subject properties to Paulino for P200,000.00, a Deed of Sale of Hereditary and Conjugal Property Rights dated January 13, 1995 transferring Victoria's conjugal share to Paulino, a Secretary Certificate dated April 30, 2008 authorizing the sale of a vehicle assigned to Emilio Sr. during his employment with Integrated Project Corporation, and a Deed of Sale dated April 30, 2008 transferring that vehicle to Paulino.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Sederiosa liable and recommended a one-year suspension and revocation of his notarial commission. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings with modification on October 11, 2014, revoking his notarial commission, disqualifying him from being commissioned as notary public for two years, and suspending him from the practice of law for one year. The Supreme Court adopted and approved the IBP BOG's findings and recommendation in a Resolution dated December 7, 2015.

On February 9, 2016, Atty. Sederiosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the IBP BOG, claiming he received the October 11, 2014 Resolution only on January 29, 2016, and seeking reexamination of the findings and reduction of the penalty. Meanwhile, complainant Emilio, Jr. filed a Manifestation informing the Court that despite the December 7, 2015 Resolution, Atty. Sederiosa had continuously engaged in the practice of law and remained a duly commissioned notary public. Emilio, Jr. presented as evidence a July 14, 2016 Certification from the RTC-Davao City Office of the Clerk of Court stating that Atty. Sederiosa was a duly commissioned notary public for the years 2016-2017, his Commission for Notary Public and Oath dated January 8, 2016, a photograph of his law firm's signboard, and an Affidavit of Loss duly notarized by Atty. Sederiosa on August 8, 2016.

Atty. Sederiosa submitted a Manifestation denying violation of the suspension order, claiming he never officially received a copy of the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution and only learned of it when complainants' counsel filed a Manifestation on September 6, 2016. He stressed that the only resolution he received was the IBP's October 11, 2014 Resolution, to which he timely filed a motion for reconsideration that remained unresolved. The Court referred his Motion for Reconsideration to the OBC, which found it without merit, noting that Registry Return Receipt No. 3956 showed a certain Deo Zuniga received a copy of the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution on behalf of Atty. Sederiosa on January 29, 2016. Atty. Sederiosa failed to show proof that Zuniga was incompetent to receive the same, nor did he assail Zuniga's authority to receive it.

• Non-Receipt of Suspension Order: Complainant Emilio, Jr. manifested that despite the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution suspending Atty. Sederiosa, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from being commissioned as notary public, Atty. Sederiosa had continuously engaged in the practice of law and remained a duly commissioned notary public, presenting documentary evidence including a certification from the RTC-Davao City, his notarial commission and oath, a photograph of his law firm's signboard, and an Affidavit of Loss he notarized.

• Non-Receipt of Court Resolution: Atty. Sederiosa claimed he did not officially receive a copy of the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution and only learned about it when complainants' counsel filed a Manifestation on September 6, 2016.
• Timely Filing of Reconsideration: Atty. Sederiosa stressed that the only resolution he received was the IBP's October 11, 2014 Resolution, to which he timely filed a motion for reconsideration which remained unresolved.
• No Violation of Suspension Order: Atty. Sederiosa maintained that he did not violate the suspension order of the High Court, as he had never officially received it.

• Administrative Liability for Unauthorized Practice: Whether Atty. Sederiosa is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during his suspension, for notarizing documents despite the revocation of his notarial commission, and for being commissioned as notary public notwithstanding his disqualification.
• Propriety of Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the OBC — further suspension for one year and permanent disqualification from reappointment as notary public — should be adopted or modified.

• Administrative Liability for Unauthorized Practice: Yes. Atty. Sederiosa was administratively liable for engaging in law practice during his suspension and for performing notarial duties despite revocation of his commission, constituting willful disobedience of a lawful court order under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Propriety of Penalty: Modified. The Court imposed an additional two-year suspension on top of the unserved one-year suspension, revocation of his current notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from acting as notary public, rather than the one-year additional suspension recommended by the OBC.

• Administrative Liability for Unauthorized Practice: The regulation of the practice of law falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A suspended lawyer must refrain from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge during the period of suspension. The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of court, requiring the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience — encompassing the performance of acts characteristic of the legal profession or rendering any service requiring the use of legal knowledge or skill. Notarization constitutes practice of law because one of the qualifications for a notarial commission under Section 1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice is that the petitioner must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. A lawyer under suspension is deemed not a member in good standing and is therefore barred from notarial practice. Registry Return Receipt No. 3956 established that Atty. Sederiosa received the Court's December 7, 2015 Resolution on January 29, 2016 through one Deo Zuniga, and he failed to assail Zuniga's authority to receive it. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was upheld. Despite this, he remained a commissioned notary public from January 8, 2016 to December 31, 2017 and notarized an Affidavit of Loss on August 8, 2016 — well after receipt of the suspension order. His willful disobedience constituted a breach of the Lawyer's Oath and violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, Canon 9, Canon 10, and Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His continued notarial practice despite revocation of his commission was also indisputably contemptuous.

• Propriety of Penalty: The Court found the penalty of an additional two-year suspension commensurate to the infractions committed, on top of the one-year suspension previously imposed which remained unserved, with revocation of his current notarial commission and permanent disqualification from acting as notary public. While the OBC recommended only one year of further suspension, the Court deemed a heavier penalty warranted given that Atty. Sederiosa had never served his original suspension and had actively defied the Court's orders. However, disbarment — the most severe form of disciplinary sanction — was not imposed, as it must be exercised with great caution and decreed only where no lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. The Court distinguished the case from Zafra III vs. Atty. Pagatpatan, where disbarment was imposed because the respondent continued to practice law for over 11 years despite the suspension order, a far more prolonged and egregious violation than the present case.

• Practice of Law Defined — The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It comprises the performance of acts characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. The Court applied this definition to hold that notarization of documents constitutes practice of law, as a notary public must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing.

• Notarial Practice as Practice of Law During Suspension — A lawyer suspended from the practice of law is barred from engaging in notarial practice because he/she is deemed not a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, which is an essential requisite for notarial commission under Section 1, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The Court applied this principle to find Atty. Sederiosa liable for continuing to notarize documents during his suspension.

• Willful Disobedience as Ground for Suspension — Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Court found that Atty. Sederiosa's continued practice of law and notarization despite the suspension order constituted willful disobedience, breaching the Lawyer's Oath and multiple canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Disbarment as a Penalty of Last Resort — Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and must be exercised with great caution, imposed only for serious reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer. It should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired. The Court applied this doctrine to justify imposing an additional two-year suspension rather than disbarment, distinguishing the case from Zafra III vs. Atty. Pagatpatan where the respondent practiced law for over 11 years in defiance of a suspension order.

• Presumption of Regularity in Service of Court Orders — A registry return receipt constitutes prima facie proof that a court order had been delivered to and received by the addressee, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is upheld absent proof to the contrary. The Court applied this presumption where Atty. Sederiosa denied receipt of the suspension order but the registry return receipt showed service through Deo Zuniga, whose authority to receive was never assailed.

• "The practice of law includes any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It comprises the performance of acts which are characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." — This passage provides the canonical definition of the practice of law applied to determine that notarization falls within its scope, a principle central to the Court's finding of administrative liability.

• "In other words, a lawyer, during the period of his/her suspension, is barred from engaging in notarial practice as he/she is deemed not a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing, which is one of the essential requisites to be eligible as a notary public." — This articulates the ratio decidendi connecting the definition of practice of law to the qualifications for notarial commission, establishing that a suspended lawyer cannot lawfully serve as notary public.

• "Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired." — This formulation, quoted from Alitagtag vs. Atty. Garcia, states the controlling doctrine on the exercise of the Court's disbarment power, explaining why the Court chose additional suspension rather than the most severe sanction.

• "No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities." — This passage, quoted from Atty. Embido vs. Atty. Pe, Jr., encapsulates the Court's overarching philosophy on the privilege of practicing law and the Court's disciplinary authority over members of the bar.

• Tan, Jr. vs. Atty. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, January 10, 2018 — Followed. The Court imposed an additional six-month suspension on a lawyer who continued to practice law by filing pleadings and appearing as counsel despite her suspension. Cited as comparative precedent for the penalty of additional suspension for practicing during suspension.
• Molina vs. Atty. Magat, 687 Phil. 1 (2012) — Followed. The Court suspended a lawyer for six additional months for practicing his profession notwithstanding his suspension. Cited as supporting precedent for the principle that practicing law during suspension warrants further disciplinary action.
• Ibana-Andrade vs. Atty. Paita-Moya, 763 Phil. 687 (2015) — Followed. A similar penalty was imposed against a lawyer who, despite receipt of the resolution on her suspension, continued to practice law through filing of pleadings and acting as counsel in courts.
• Zafra III vs. Atty. Pagatpatan, A.C. No. 12457, April 2, 2019 — Distinguished. The Court meted the penalty of disbarment against a respondent who continued to practice law for over 11 years despite the suspension order. Distinguished from the present case because the duration and severity of the violation in Zafra III far exceeded Atty. Sederiosa's conduct, justifying disbarment there but only additional suspension here.
• Alitagtag vs. Atty. Garcia, 451 Phil. 420, 426 (2003) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution and imposed only in clear cases of misconduct, and that disbarment should never be decreed where a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.
• Atty. Embido vs. Atty. Pe, Jr., 720 Phil. 1, 10-11 (2013) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw that privilege from those who fail to observe the Lawyer's Oath and canons of ethical conduct.
• Scenarios, Inc. vs. Vinluan, 587 Phil. 351, 359 (2008) — Followed. Cited for the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, applied to uphold the registry return receipt as prima facie proof of receipt of the suspension order.
• Atty. Eustaquio vs. Atty. Navales, 786 Phil. 484, 490 (2016) — Followed. Cited for the definition of the practice of law and the principle that a suspended lawyer must refrain from performing all functions requiring the application of legal knowledge.

• Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Provides that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended for, among other grounds, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. Applied as the statutory basis for finding Atty. Sederiosa administratively liable for continuing to practice law and notarize documents despite the Court's suspension order.
• Section 1, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Sets forth the qualifications for a notarial commission, including that the petitioner must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. Applied to establish that a suspended lawyer, not being in good standing, is ineligible for a notarial commission and barred from notarial practice.
• Section 6, Rule 13, Rules on Civil Procedure — Governs personal service of court papers, allowing delivery to the party or counsel, or leaving it in his office with his clerk or a person having charge thereof, or at his residence with a person of sufficient age and discretion. Applied to uphold the validity of service of the suspension order through Deo Zuniga, whose authority Atty. Sederiosa never assailed.
• Lawyer's Oath (Form 28, Rules of Court) — Mandates every lawyer to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities and to conduct himself according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts and to his clients. Found to have been breached by Atty. Sederiosa's willful disobedience of the Court's suspension order.
• Code of Professional Responsibility — Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, Canon 9, Canon 10, Canon 15 — Found to have been violated by Atty. Sederiosa's actuations, which amounted to gross deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness to practice law, and assistance in the unauthorized practice of law.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, and Baltazar-Padilla, JJ., concurred.