Ciocon-Reer vs. Lubao

A non-lawyer who secures a special power of attorney from litigants to file complaints and pleadings on their behalf, acting as their attorney-in-fact and representative, is engaged in unauthorized practice of law and liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, regardless of whether he identifies himself as a member of the Bar or indicates professional credentials such as a PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, and errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions must be challenged through judicial remedies rather than administrative complaints.

Complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819, an unlawful detainer case appealed from the Municipal Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 3, to the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22, presided by Judge Lubao. Karaan, one of the complainants, was not a member of the Bar but had been rendering paralegal services to various parties — including senior citizens, indigents, and members of communities with limited means — by securing special powers of attorney that enabled him to file suits and pleadings on their behalf as their attorney-in-fact. The OCA's Docket and Clearance Division records revealed that Karaan had filed numerous administrative complaints against judges from different courts, all of which had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Complainants Juvy P. Ciocon-Reer, Angelina P. Ciocon, Marivit P. Ciocon-Hernandez, and Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819, an action for unlawful detainer, damages, and injunction appealed from the Municipal Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 3, to the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22, presided by Judge Antonio C. Lubao. On September 12, 2008, Judge Lubao issued an Order directing the parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty days from receipt. The order was sent by registered mail to the defendants on September 30, 2008. Complainants alleged that the defendants should have received the order within one week, or by October 7, 2008, making the thirty-day period expire on November 6, 2008. Since the defendants failed to submit their memorandum by that date, complainants contended that the defendants should be deemed to have waived their right to adduce evidence and that Judge Lubao should have decided the case. Four months passed from November 6, 2008, and still no decision was rendered.

Judge Lubao explained that while the plaintiffs submitted their memorandum on November 10, 2008, the court did not receive the registry return card confirming receipt by the defendants. On December 10, 2008, the branch clerk of court wrote the Post Office of General Santos City requesting certification as to when the September 12, 2008 order — sent under Registry Receipt No. 690 — was received by the defendants, but no reply was received. On May 20, 2009, Judge Lubao issued another order giving the defendants their last chance to submit their memorandum within thirty days from receipt, and directed the plaintiffs to coordinate with the branch sheriff for personal delivery of the order. The plaintiffs failed to coordinate with the sheriff, and the order was sent to the defendants again by registered mail only on June 17, 2009. Judge Lubao also informed the Court that Karaan was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law despite not being a lawyer, and asked that Karaan be required to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt.

Karaan filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Judge Lubao's failure to submit his comment on time constituted gross ignorance of the law, and dismissed the unauthorized practice allegation as a mere attempt to evade the issues. Karaan denied representing himself as an attorney, noting that he did not indicate any PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number in his documents, and claimed his paralegal services were rendered free of charge to assist senior citizens, indigents, and members of communities with limited means. The OCA's investigation, however, established a pattern in Karaan's activities: he would require parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor, join them as a co-plaintiff acting as their attorney-in-fact, and file complaints and pleadings "acting for and in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties. The OCA also noted that Karaan had filed numerous administrative complaints against various judges, all of which had been dismissed, and that he continually used intemperate and slanderous language in attributing malicious motives to Judge Lubao without substantiation.

• Delay in Decision: Complainants argued that Judge Lubao should have decided the case after the thirty-day period for submitting memoranda expired on November 6, 2008, and that his failure to do so for four months constituted gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and inefficiency.
• Deemed Waiver: Complainants maintained that the defendants' failure to submit their memorandum by November 6, 2008 should have resulted in a deemed waiver of their right to adduce evidence, obligating Judge Lubao to render judgment.
• Evasion of Issues: Karaan alleged that Judge Lubao's accusation of unauthorized practice of law was merely an attempt to evade the administrative issues raised against him.
• Denial of Unauthorized Practice: Karaan argued that he never represented himself as a lawyer or officer of the court, pointing out that he did not indicate any PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number in his documents, and that his free paralegal services were rendered for the public good to assist senior citizens, indigents, and underprivileged communities.
• Late Comment as Violation: Karaan contended that Judge Lubao's failure to submit his comment on time to the administrative complaint was a violation of existing rules and procedure amounting to gross ignorance of the law.

• Procedural Justification: Judge Lubao explained that the delay was attributable to the non-receipt of the registry return card confirming delivery of the September 12, 2008 order to the defendants, and that his branch clerk of court had written the Post Office requesting certification of the receipt date but received no reply.
• Substantial Justice: Judge Lubao maintained that his May 20, 2009 order giving the defendants a last chance to submit their memorandum was issued for the greater interest of substantial justice, particularly because the court a quo had summarily dismissed the case without service of summons on the defendants.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Judge Lubao informed the Court that Karaan was engaging in the practice of law without being a lawyer and asked that Karaan be required to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Lubao: Whether the administrative complaint against Judge Lubao should be reinstated on motion for reconsideration, given the alleged delay in deciding the case and the alleged procedural irregularities.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Whether Karaan was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law despite not holding himself out as a member of the Bar.
• Indirect Contempt: Whether Karaan should be found guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Lubao: No. The motion for reconsideration was denied, the issues being judicial in nature and the judge having acted without fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Errors in a judge's exercise of adjudicative functions must be challenged through judicial remedies, not administrative complaints.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law: Yes. Karaan's pattern of securing special powers of attorney from litigants and filing complaints and pleadings on their behalf as their attorney-in-fact constituted practice of law as defined in Cayetano vs. Monsod, notwithstanding his failure to identify himself as a member of the Bar.
• Indirect Contempt: Yes. Karaan was found guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and fined ₱10,000, the penalty of imprisonment being removed in consideration of his advanced age and health.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Lubao: The Court reaffirmed the principle that not all administrative complaints against judges merit a corresponding penalty. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. The matters raised by complainants — the alleged delay in deciding the case and the alleged procedural irregularities — were judicial in nature and could only be questioned through the appropriate judicial remedies under the Rules of Court. Karaan could not assume that the defendants received the September 12, 2008 order without the registry return card, which was never returned to the trial court. While Karaan claimed personal knowledge of when one of the parties received the order, this claim was unsupported by evidence and was not in the records of the case when Judge Lubao issued his May 20, 2009 order. The records showed that Judge Lubao had been careful: his branch clerk of court had written the Post Office requesting certification of the receipt date. There was no evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith. Moreover, Judge Lubao could not be faulted for giving all parties an opportunity to be heard, since the court a quo had summarily dismissed the case without issuing summons to the defendants.

• Unauthorized Practice of Law: The Court applied the definition of "practice of law" from Cayetano vs. Monsod: any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts usually performed by members of the legal profession and to render any kind of service requiring the use of legal knowledge or skill. The OCA established Karaan's modus operandi: he would require parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor, join them as a co-plaintiff as their attorney-in-fact, and file complaints and pleadings "acting for and in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties. These activities fell squarely within the practice of law. The fact that Karaan did not indicate any PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number in his pleadings did not detract from the fact that, by his actions, he was actually engaged in the practice of law.

• Indirect Contempt: Under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person "[a]ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority" is liable for indirect contempt. The prescribed penalty for contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank is a fine not exceeding ₱30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Following the ruling in In re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, the OCA recommended ten days' imprisonment at the Manila City Jail and a fine of ₱1,000. However, because Karaan was already 71 years old, the Court deemed it proper to remove the penalty of imprisonment and instead increase the fine to ₱10,000, with a warning that repetition of any similar offense would merit more serious sanctions.

• Judicial Immunity from Administrative Discipline — In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. Errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions must be challenged through judicial remedies under the Rules of Court, not through administrative complaints. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the complaint against Judge Lubao, finding no evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith in his handling of the case.

• Definition of Practice of Law — "Practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. The Court applied this definition to Karaan's activities — securing special powers of attorney, joining as co-plaintiff and attorney-in-fact, and filing complaints and pleadings on behalf of litigants — and held that these constituted unauthorized practice of law regardless of whether he held himself out as a Bar member.

• Indirect Contempt for Unauthorized Practice — Under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a person assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court and acting as such without authority is liable for indirect contempt. The penalty for contempt committed against an RTC or higher court is a fine not exceeding ₱30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. The Court found Karaan guilty under this provision, modifying the penalty to a fine of ₱10,000 in lieu of imprisonment due to his advanced age.

• "In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action." — This passage states the controlling doctrine shielding judges from administrative liability for judicial acts performed in good faith, and is the ratio decidendi for dismissing the complaint against Judge Lubao.

• "Here, the OCA was able to establish the pattern in Karaan's unauthorized practice of law. He would require the parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to join them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he would file the necessary complaint and other pleadings 'acting for and in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative' of the parties." — This passage describes the specific factual pattern that constituted unauthorized practice of law, illustrating how a non-lawyer's use of a special power of attorney to file pleadings on behalf of others falls within the definition of law practice.

• "The fact that Karaan did not indicate in the pleadings that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorney's Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number does not detract from the fact that, by his actions, he was actually engaged in the practice of law." — This passage establishes that the test for unauthorized practice of law is functional — based on the nature of the acts performed — rather than formal, and that the absence of professional credentials does not exempt a person from liability.

• Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210 — Controlling precedent defining "practice of law" as any activity, in or out of court, requiring the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. The Court applied this definition to hold that Karaan's activities constituted unauthorized practice of law.

• Aguirre vs. Rana, 451 Phil. 428 (2003) — Followed as supporting authority for the proposition that to practice law is to render any kind of service requiring the use of legal knowledge or skill.

• In re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 311 Phil. 441 (1995) — Followed as the basis for the recommended penalty of imprisonment and fine for indirect contempt arising from unauthorized practice of law.

• Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Luczon, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-05-1901, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 65 — Cited for the doctrine that in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.

• Section 3(e), Rule 71, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that a person "[a]ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority" is liable for indirect contempt of court. Applied to hold Karaan liable for unauthorized practice of law.

• Section 7, Rule 71, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Prescribes the penalties for indirect contempt: for contempt committed against an RTC or court of equivalent or higher rank, a fine not exceeding ₱30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both; for contempt committed against a lower court, a fine not exceeding ₱5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month, or both. Applied to determine the range of penalties available, with the Court ultimately imposing a fine of ₱10,000 in lieu of imprisonment.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Cited among the charges against Judge Lubao, alleging that he caused undue injury to any party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The charge was not substantiated and the complaint was dismissed.

• Articles 171 and 172, Revised Penal Code — Cited among the charges against Judge Lubao for alleged falsification by public officer and private individual. The charges were not substantiated and the complaint was dismissed.

Brion, Peralta, Sereno, and Reyes, JJ., concurred. (Reyes, J. was designated additional member per Raffle dated June 18, 2012.)