BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
ANDY DELA VICTORIA CANONOY VS. ATTY. JOSE B. GUIBONE, A.C. NO. 11444, FEBRUARY 18, 2026: SERVICE OF SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW RECKONED FROM RECEIPT OF THE RESOLUTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND NOT FROM THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES WHICH IS MERELY RECOMMENDATORY IN NATURE
Andy Dela Victoria Canonoy (hereinafter as the “Complainant”) and his five siblings, as heirs of the late Angelita Dela Victoria, charged respondent Atty. Jose B. Guibone (hereinafter as the “Respondent”) for notarizing a falsified Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate dated September 22, 2015, despite their alleged non-appearance and the forged signatures appearing therein. Evidence showed that the heirs were in different parts of the country and abroad at the time of the purported notarization.
The investigation further revealed that Respondent maintained multiple notarial offices, allowed his staff to sign documents on his behalf, used multiple notarial seals, and notarized documents upon the presentation of only a community tax certificate. Respondent admitted committing these acts.
In an unsigned Resolution dated February 25, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc found the Respondent guilty and imposed on him a total of two (2) years suspension from the practice of law and disqualification for similar period to be commissioned as Notary Public effective immediately and a fine of Php100,001.00 for another violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Respondent filed a Manifestation dated June 25, 2025 praying that he be allowed to resume practicing law on January 30, 2026 since he allegedly voluntarily ceased to practice law on January 30, 2024, prior to the Supreme Court’s Resolution but after receiving the Resolution from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP”). Complainant filed a Comment dated July 17, 2025 opposing the Manifestation stating that it should be reckoned from receipt of the Court’s Resolution and not that of the IBP Resolution, which is recommendatory and does not attain finality absent action by the Court. Parenthetically, Complainant claims that Respondent continued to engage in the practice of law during 2024 and 2025, including by serving as Legal Unit Head and Regional Legal Officer of the Department of Education – CARAGA as purportedly shown by official publications, memoranda, and public postings.
The Supreme Court restated the guidelines governing the commencement and lifting of suspensions from the practice of law in Re: Order dated 01 October 2015 in Criminal Case No. 15-318727-34 against Atty. Brillantes, A.C. No. 11032 (January 10, 2023). The Court held that “suspension takes effect only upon the lawyer’s receipt of the decision or resolution imposing the penalty of suspension. The Court further held that the lifting of the suspension is not automatic, but is effected only upon the lawyer’s submission of the required sworn statement of compliance to the proper offices, attesting that the period of suspension has been fully served and that the lawyer desisted from the practice of law during the entire duration thereof.”
Also, in Calixto vs. Atty. Cora Jane Baleros, A.C. No. 13911, October 3, 2023, the Supreme Court highlighted that lawyers may not benefit from their own acts or omissions in a manner that would allow them to escape disciplinary action. The commencement of penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and may not be dependent on his or her convenience.
Considering that the Respondent received the Court’s Resolution dated February 25, 2025, on May 13, 2025, the period of suspension cannot be reckoned from any earlier date. The Court denied Respondent’s Manifestation since he has not yet fully served the penalty of suspension imposed by the Court.