BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

BERNALDO E. VALDEZ VS. WINSTON B. HIPE, A.C. NO. 12443 (MARCH 14, 2022): REINSTATEMENT OF A SUSPENDED LAWYER EFFECTIVE UPON FILING OF SWORN STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

In a Decision dated 14 March 2022 in the case of Bernaldo E. Valdez vs. Atty. Winston B. Hipe, A.C. No. 12443 (March 14, 2022), Atty. Winston Hipe was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) month and barred from being a Notary Public for one (1) year for failing to report or include in his notarial report a document he notarized and assigning two documents to one notarial entry/details. In that case, respondent notarized a Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping for a Counter-Affidavit. However, when checking with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (OCC-RTC), the document with those notarial details pertains to an Affidavit of Circumstances of Death.

The Supreme Court held that respondent’s failure to record the document in his notarial register amounts to falsely making it appear that the document was notarized when, in fact, it was not. Likewise, the Court held that the non-appearance of the document or instrument in the notarial records without any copy therein creates doubt whether such document or instrument was indeed notarized. It is also effectively removed the credit and full faith which notarization generates on notarized documents. 

Respondent sought for reinstatement by filing a Sworn Statement of Compliance. In a Resolution dated 23 August 2023, the Supreme Court held that the Court’s confirmation of the lifting of the suspension is no longer necessary and the filing of a sworn statement of compliance will result in automatic lifting of the suspension. The Court acknowledged the burden and delay which accompanies in the process of securing certifications from various courts and agencies attesting to the suspended lawyer’s desistance from the practice of law. Especially, during the pandemic, restrictions forced the courts and offices to halt operations from time to time, and the implementation of such requirement inadvertently resulted in unduly extending the period of suspension longer than what is ordered by the Court.

Thus, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines: (1) After a finding that the respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision or resolution imposing the appropriate penalty; (2) The order of suspension shall be immediately executory upon receipt thereof by the respondent lawyer; (3) Every order of suspension imposed against a member of the Bar shall be furnished to the: (1) Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to respondent’s personal record as an attorney; (2) Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its infom1ation and guidance; and (3) Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country; (4) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, the respondent lawyer shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law, has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension and has complied with all other directives of the Court relative to the order of suspension; (5) Copies of such Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP, the Executive Judge of the courts, or any quasi-judicial agencies where the respondent lawyer has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; (6) The order of suspension shall be automatically lifted upon submission by the respondent lawyer of such Sworn Statement of service of suspension; (7) While respondent lawyers are neither prohibited nor discouraged to attach supporting certifications from their local IBP chapters, and from courts and quasi-judicial agencies where they practice, their requests to resume the practice of law will not be held in abeyance on account of their non-submission; and, (8) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the respondent lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or even disbarment, as may be warranted.

Finally, the Court held: “Consistent with the Court’s intent in Brilliantes to make the process of lifting disciplinary suspensions speedy and efficient, a suspended lawyer no longer needs to await the processing and granting of certificates of compliance from courts and quasi-judicial agencies. The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension should be reckoned from the time of filing the required sworn statement. As a necessary consequence of the automatic lifting of suspension, the resumption of the practice of law is likewise deemed automatic. There is nothing in Brillantes which requires the Court’s confirmation before the suspension may lifted or the practice of law allowed to resume.”