Re: Order dated 01 October 2015 vs. Brillantes

Submission of a sworn statement that the suspended lawyer has desisted from practice and complied with the suspension order is sufficient to lift the suspension, and resumption shall not be held in abeyance for non-submission of supporting certifications from the IBP and courts.

In a Resolution dated 02 March 2020, Atty. Severo L. Brillantes was suspended from the practice of law for six months for violations of Canons 8 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Resolution directed him upon receipt to immediately serve suspension, to manifest commencement within five days, and to furnish copies to all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where he had appeared and to all adverse parties. He received the copy on 08 February 2021 and the following day filed a Manifestation with Plea for Mercy dated 09 February 2021 asking that suspension be reduced to one month, which was denied by Resolution dated 14 June 2021.

Thereafter respondent filed a Manifestation with Motion to Lift Order Suspending Respondent from the Practice of Law. According to him, after receipt of the 02 March 2020 Resolution he desisted from the practice of law, furnished concerned adverse parties and the courts and quasi-judicial agencies where he had entered appearance with copies of his 09 February 2021 Manifestation, and filed his Withdrawal of Appearance therein, attaching copies of emails sent as proof. Citing various health problems, he apologized for delay in notification, contended he had already complied with the six-month period, had learned his lesson with his family suffering with him for seven months, and needed to attend to clients' cases as soon as possible.

The Office of the Bar Confidant reported that respondent had served suspension from receipt on 08 February 2021 until 08 August 2021. While respondent failed to submit certifications from the courts where he practices and from the IBP Chapter where he belongs, his sworn statement attesting compliance was deemed sufficient under Maniago vs. De Dias. The OBC observed varying interpretations of Maniago, with some respondents filing both sworn statements and certifications while others filed only sworn statements, many motions held in abeyance pending certifications, and securing certifications rendered burdensome by COVID-19 lockdowns, risks to senior citizens, and economic loss to lawyers whose only income derives from practice.

• Desistance and Completion of Suspension: Respondent alleged that after receipt of the Resolution dated 02 March 2020 he desisted from the practice of law and has already complied with the six-month period of suspension.
• Notification and Withdrawal of Appearance: Respondent maintained that he furnished all concerned adverse parties and the courts and quasi-judicial agencies where he entered appearance with copies of his Manifestation dated 09 February 2021 and filed his Withdrawal of Appearance therein, attaching copies of emails as proof thereof, while apologizing for delay due to various health problems.
• Plea for Mercy and Resumption: Respondent beseeched mercy and compassion, alleging he has learned his lesson, his family suffered with him for seven months, and he needs to attend to his clients' cases as soon as possible.

• Sufficiency of Sworn Statement: Whether respondent's submission of a sworn statement of compliance is sufficient for purposes of lifting a disciplinary order of suspension.

• Sufficiency of Sworn Statement: Yes. Submission of a sworn certification of service of suspension is deemed sufficient compliance with Maniago, and requests to resume practice shall not be held in abeyance for non-submission of supporting IBP and court certifications.

• Sufficiency of Sworn Statement: Maniago was found categorical that the sworn statement is sufficient proof of compliance, as confirmed in Reyes vs. Vitan and Tan, Jr. vs. Gumba where only a sworn statement with service of copies on the IBP and courts and warning against falsehood was required. The contrary stream requiring independent certifications, as in Miranda vs. Carpio, Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr., and Ko vs. Uy-Lampasa, created apparent inconsistency warranting clarification. Because requiring certifications prolongs suspension beyond the period imposed, adds economic burden on lawyers whose sole income is practice, and exposes even senior or immunocompromised lawyers to COVID-19 risk amid intermittent office closures, Maniago was to be interpreted liberally with procedural safeguards retained through distribution of suspension orders to the OBC, IBP, and OCA and punishment for false sworn statements. Applied to respondent, whose suspension ended as the country began gaining control of the pandemic through vaccination and who submitted email communications notifying adverse parties, courts, and quasi-judicial agencies in addition to his sworn statement, prolonging the lifting was unwarranted.

• Practice of law as privilege burdened with conditions — The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, requiring adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, and faithful compliance with rules of the legal profession. The principle was invoked to justify the rule on disciplinary suspension and the conditions for resumption of practice.
• No automatic resumption after suspension — When a lawyer is suspended, there is no automatic resumption of practice after expiration of the period; the suspended lawyer must comply with requirements and secure an order prior to reinstatement. The rule ensures only qualified and competent individuals resume practice.
• Sworn statement as sufficient proof of service of suspension — Upon expiration of suspension, the filing of a Sworn Statement through the Office of the Bar Confidant that the lawyer desisted from practice, did not appear in any court during suspension, and complied with other directives, with copies furnished to the IBP Local Chapter and Executive Judge of courts or quasi-judicial agencies where pending cases or appearances exist, suffices to lift the order, which is automatically lifted upon submission. Supporting certifications may be attached but non-submission does not justify holding resumption in abeyance.
• False sworn statement as ground for graver sanction — Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for imposition of more severe punishment, or disbarment, as warranted, apart from applicable criminal and/or administrative punishment. The safeguard deters abuse of the liberalized lifting process.

• "One of the foundational precepts in legal ethics is that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions." — States the foundational justification for imposing conditions on admission to and resumption of practice after suspension.
• "The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent's compliance with the order of suspension;" — Articulates the controlling Maniago rule clarified as sufficient basis for lifting suspension without additional certifications.
• "Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted." — Defines the deterrent safeguard retained despite liberalizing the requirements for lifting suspension.

• Maniago vs. De Dias, 631 Phil. 139 (2010) — Controlling precedent laying down guidelines for resumption after suspension; clarified and reaffirmed that sworn statement is sufficient proof of compliance.
• Reyes vs. Vitan, 642 Phil. 1 (2010) — Followed Maniago by conditioning reinstatement on submission of sworn statement of compliance with service on IBP and courts, without requiring third-party certifications.
• Tan, Jr. vs. Gumba, 823 Phil. 116, 126-127 (2018) — Reiterated Maniago holding on sworn statement requirement and cited for absence of automatic resumption after suspension.
• Miranda vs. Carpio, A.C. No. 6281, 15 January 2020 — Contrary stream distinguished; therein required sworn statement with motion to lift plus certifications from IBP Local Chapter and Executive Judge to affirm full service.
• Miranda, Jr. vs. Alvarez, Sr., 839 Phil. 416 (2018) — Cited as instance where certifications were required or submitted in addition to sworn statement, illustrating inconsistent implementation of Maniago.
• Ko vs. Uy-Lampasa, A.C. No. 11584, 21 June 2021 — Cited as instance where certifications were required or submitted in addition to sworn statement, illustrating inconsistent implementation of Maniago.

• Canons 8 and 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — Basis for respondent's six-month suspension from practice; violation thereof led to the disciplinary order whose lifting requirements were clarified.
• Maniago Guidelines on Lifting Suspension — Applied as restated into eight uniform guidelines governing executory nature, dissemination, sworn statement, service of copies, automatic lifting, optional certifications, and sanction for falsehood.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Hernando, J., on leave.