Scribd
Upload
412 views2 pages

4 Tan, Jr. vs. Gumba

This case involved attorney Haide Gumba, who was previously suspended from practicing law for six months from November 2012 to May 2013 for misrepresenting herself in a loan. While suspended, Gumba represented a party in court, which led the OCA to assert she did not have authority to practice law during her suspension period. Gumba filed a complaint against the OCA. The Supreme Court ruled that Gumba was administratively liable for practicing law during her suspension period, as suspension is not automatically lifted by the end date and a court order is required. As such, Gumba received an additional six month suspension and a warning about further offenses.

Uploaded by

Jem
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
412 views2 pages

4 Tan, Jr. vs. Gumba

This case involved attorney Haide Gumba, who was previously suspended from practicing law for six months from November 2012 to May 2013 for misrepresenting herself in a loan. While suspended, Gumba represented a party in court, which led the OCA to assert she did not have authority to practice law during her suspension period. Gumba filed a complaint against the OCA. The Supreme Court ruled that Gumba was administratively liable for practicing law during her suspension period, as suspension is not automatically lifted by the end date and a court order is required. As such, Gumba received an additional six month suspension and a warning about further offenses.

Uploaded by

Jem
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tan, Jr. vs.

Gumba
A.C. No. 9000. January 10, 2018.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Facts:
Atty Haide Gumba, respondent, was suspended from the practice of law for six months
from  November 12, 2012 until May 12, 2013 when she misrepresented herself in a loan she
obtained from Tomas Tan, Jr., complainant. Respondents failed to pay the P350,000.00 loan with
12% interest per annum in which complainant attempted to register the Deed of Absolute Sale
but to no avail because said SPA only covered the authority of respondent to mortgage the
property to a bank, and not to sell it. Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Board of Governors (IBP-
BOG) resolved to adopt and approve the Report and Recommendation of Commissioner de la
Rama finding that she committed gross violation of the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canon 1, Rule
1.01, and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The court’s resolutions for her
suspension were returned unserved. Subsequently, Judge Margaret N. Armea of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Naga City, Branch 2 wrote a letter inquiring from the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) whether respondent could continue representing her clients and appear in
courts as respondent represented a party in a case pending in her court. In which, Judge Armea
disallowed her appearance in their courts by reason of the downloaded decision from the
internet.
The OBC  pointed out that suspension is not automatically lifted by mere lapse of the
period of suspension and it is necessary that an order be issued by the Court lifting the
suspension to enable the concerned lawyer to resume practice of law and maintained that
respondent has no authority to practice law and appear in court as counsel during her suspension,
and until such time that the Court has lifted the order of her suspension. Respondent filed a
complaint accusing the OCA and the OBC of suspending her from the practice of law even if the
administrative case against her was still pending with the IBP.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law
during the period of her suspension and prior to an order of the Court lifting such suspension?
Rule of law:
Application:
Time and again, the Court reminds the bench and bar “that the practice of law is not a
right but a mere privilege [subject] to the inherent regulatory power of the [Court],” It is a
“privilege burdened with conditions.” As such, lawyers must comply with its rigid standards,
which include mental fitness, maintenance of highest level of morality, and full compliance with
the rules of the legal profession.
It is common sense that when the Court orders the suspension of a lawyer from the
practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions which require the
application of legal knowledge within the period of his or her suspension. To stress, by practice
of law, we refer to “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. It includes performing acts which are
characteristic of the legal profession, or rendering any kind of service which requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill.” In fine, it will amount to unauthorized practice, and a
violation of a lawful order of the Court if a suspended lawyer engages in the practice of law
during the pendency of his or her suspension.
The lifting of a suspension order is not automatic. It is necessary that there is an order
from the Court lifting the suspension of a lawyer to practice law. To note, in Maniago (631 Phil.
139; 617 SCRA 142 (2010)), the Court explicitly stated that a suspended lawyer shall, upon the
expiration of one’s suspension, file a sworn statement with the Court, and that such statement
shall be considered proof of the lawyer’s compliance with the order of suspension.
Conclusion:
WHEREFORE, Atty. Haide V. Gumba is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
an additional period of six (6) months (from her original six [6] months suspension)
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Haide V. Gumba is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of her receipt of this
Decision, to determine the reckoning point when her suspension shall take effect.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy