Complainant vs. Atty. Ramon

No additional suspension or disbarment may be imposed on a lawyer who has already been disbarred, even for unauthorized practice of law committed during a prior suspension; the violation may only be recorded in the lawyer's personal file for consideration in any subsequent petition for reinstatement.

Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon was previously found guilty of dishonest and deceitful conduct in Mercullo v. Ramon (A.C. No. 11078) for obtaining substantial sums from clients under false pretenses that she could assist in redeeming foreclosed properties through her purported connection with the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended her from the practice of law for five years. Despite the suspension order, she appeared as private prosecutor in a criminal case before the Regional Trial Court of Makati.

• Prior Suspension: In Mercullo v. Ramon (A.C. No. 11078), decided July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court suspended Atty. Ramon for five years for dishonest and deceitful conduct involving clients' funds and false representations regarding the redemption of foreclosed properties.
• Unauthorized Appearance: On October 27, 2016, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 137, Makati issued an Order noting that Atty. Ramon entered her appearance as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 14-765 notwithstanding her suspension.
• Administrative Complaint: The IBP docketed the RTC Order as an administrative complaint. Atty. Ramon was duly notified but failed to file an answer or attend the mandatory conference.
• Related Criminal Activity: The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline noted that Atty. Ramon was arrested by the National Bureau of Investigation in March 2016 for allegedly selling fake Court of Appeals decisions.
• Prior Disbarment: Unbeknownst to the IBP at the time of its recommendation, the Court had already disbarred Atty. Ramon in Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon (A.C. No. 12415), decided March 5, 2019, for drafting a fake Court of Appeals decision and exacting exorbitant fees from clients.

N/A. Atty. Ramon did not file an answer or submit any position paper despite due notice, nor did she attend the mandatory conference.

• Effect of Prior Disbarment: Whether an additional penalty of suspension or disbarment may be imposed on a lawyer already disbarred for unauthorized practice of law committed during a prior suspension.
• Recording of Violation: Whether the violation should be recorded for consideration in the event the lawyer files a petition for reinstatement.
• Procedural Default: Whether a fine should be imposed for failure to comply with the IBP's orders to file an answer and attend the mandatory conference.

• Effect of Prior Disbarment: No additional suspension or disbarment may be imposed. The Court noted that Atty. Ramon had already been disbarred in Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon for falsifying Court of Appeals decisions. Philippine law does not recognize double or multiple disbarment; once a lawyer is disbarred, no further penalty affecting the privilege to practice law may be imposed.
• Recording of Violation: The violation should be adjudged for recording purposes in the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be taken into consideration in the event she subsequently files a petition for reinstatement.
• Procedural Default: A fine of P5,000.00 was imposed for willful disobedience of the IBP's orders, as the Supreme Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by a lawyer prior to disbarment.

• No Multiple Disbarment: Philippine law and jurisprudence do not recognize double or multiple disbarment. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding the privilege to practice law.
• Recording for Reinstatement: Violations committed prior to disbarment should be recorded in the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant and considered in the event of a subsequent petition for reinstatement.
• Unauthorized Practice During Suspension: Practicing law during a period of suspension constitutes willful disobedience of a lawful order and unauthorized appearance as an attorney under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, ordinarily warranting an additional six-month suspension if the lawyer has not yet been disbarred.
• Retention of Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed by a disbarred lawyer while the latter was still a member of the legal profession, and may impose fines for procedural violations or other misconduct committed prior to disbarment.

• "The penalty of suspension or disbarment can no longer be imposed on a lawyer who had been disbarred except for recording purposes."
• "We do not have double or multiple disbarment in our laws or jurisprudence. Once a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law."
• "Nevertheless, the corresponding penalty should be adjudged for recording purposes on the lawyer's personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which should be taken into consideration in the event that he subsequently files a petition for reinstatement."
• "The Court does not lose its exclusive jurisdiction over other offenses of a disbarred lawyer committed while he was still a member of the legal profession."

• Mercullo v. Ramon, 790 Phil. 267 (2016) — Established Atty. Ramon's prior five-year suspension for deceitful conduct involving client funds.
• Lampas-Peralta v. Ramon, A.C. No. 12415, March 5, 2019 — The case where Atty. Ramon was disbarred for falsifying Court of Appeals decisions; established that she was already disbarred at the time of the present ruling.
• Yuhico v. Gutierrez, 650 Phil. 225 (2010) — Cited for the principle that there is no double or multiple disbarment in Philippine jurisprudence.
• Molina v. Magat, 687 Phil. 1 (2012); Lingan v. Calubaquib, 737 Phil. 191 (2014); Feliciano v. Bautista-Lozada, 755 Phil. 349 (2015); Ibana-Andrade v. Paita-Moya, 763 Phil. 687 (2015); Paras v. Paras, 807 Phil. 153 (2017); Valmonte v. Quesada, Jr., A.C. No. 12487, December 4, 2019 — Established the consistent rule of imposing an additional six-month suspension for unauthorized practice of law during suspension periods.
• Dumlao, Jr. v. Camacho, A.C. No. 10498, September 4, 2018, 878 SCRA 595 — Supported the recording of violations for reinstatement consideration.
• Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, 816 Phil. 776 (2017); Domingo v. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No. 5473, January 23, 2018, 852 SCRA 360 — Established that the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed prior to disbarment.

• Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court — Grounds for disbarment or suspension, including willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority.
• Rule 131, Section 3(v) of the Rules of Court — Presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, applied to presume receipt of the suspension order.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), took no part; Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Reyes, J. Jr., Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur; Hernando, J., took no part; Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.