Maniago vs. Atty. De Dios (AC No. 7472, March 30, 2010) Facts: Co !

"ainant see#s $or a %is&ar ent case against res!on%ent, Atty. 'o(r%es %e Dios, $or engaging in the !ractice o$ "a) %es!ite having &een s(s!en%e% &y the Co(rt. *he !etitioner a""ege% that she $i"e% a cri ina" case against a certain +iroshi Miyata, )hich )as then re!resente% &y the res!on%ent. ,etitioner then %iscovere% $ro an -*C sta$$ that the res!on%ent ha% an o(tstan%ing s(s!ension or%er $ro the .(!re e Co(rt since 2001. /n her res!onse, res!on%ent e0!"aine% that tho(gh it is tr(e that an a% inistrative case )as in%ee% $i"e% against her )here she ete% a !ena"ty o$ si0 onths s(s!ension. +o)ever, she a"rea%y serve% s(ch s(s!ension i e%iate"y a$ter the recei!t o$ the Co(rt1s reso"(tion on May 2 Nove &er 20013 that she $or a""y in$or e% the Co(rt that she )as res( ing he !ractice o$ "a), )hich she act(a""y %i%. A !ro&"e arose )hen then 4(%ge Farra"es erroneo(s"y iss(e% a %erivative in 2007 or%ering res!on%ent to %esist $ro the !ractice o$ "a) an% revo#e% her notaria" co ission $or 2 years. -es!on%ent $i"es a Motion $or C"ari$ication )hich gave the i !ression that res!on%ent is not yet a""o)e% to res( e in her !ractice o$ "a). *he 5$$ice o$ the Co(rt A% inistrator (5CA), a$ter eva"(ation, reco en%e% the "i$ting o$ the or%er o$ s(s!ension, a""o)ing the res!on%ent to res( e $ro her !ractice o$ "a), even %es!ite the $act o$ neg"ecting to s(& it the re6(ire% certi$ications that res!on%ent has a"rea%y serve% her %esistance.

/..78: 95N the res!on%ent1s res( !tion $ro the !ractice o$ "a) is va"i% %es!ite her $ai"(re to s(& it re6(ire% certi$ications an% !assing thro(gh 5:C $or eva"(ation. +8'D: ;8.. *he .(!re e Co(rt reso"ve% this $oregoing case &ase% $ro the $o""o)ing g(i%e"ines: the !ractice o$ "a), the

1. A$ter a $in%ing that res!on%ent "a)yer (st &e s(s!en%e% $ro Co(rt sha"" ren%er a %ecision i !osing the !ena"ty3

2. 7n"ess the Co(rt e0!"icit"y states that %ecision is i e%iate"y e0ec(tory, res!on%ent has 1< %ays to $i"e $or a otion $or reconsi%eration. Denia" o$ s(ch )i"" ren%er %ecision $ina" an% e0ec(tory3 3. 7!on e0!iration o$ the !erio% o$ s(s!ension, res!on%ent sha"" $i"e a s)orn state ent )ith the Co(rt, thro(gh the 5:C, stating that he or she has %esiste% $ro the !ractice o$ "a). 4. Co!ies o$ the .)orn .tate ent sha"" &e $(rnishe% to the 'oca" Cha!ter o$ the /:, an% 80ec(tive 4(%ge )here case is !en%ing3

<. *he .)orn state ent sha"" &e consi%ere% as !roo$ o$ res!on%ent1s co !"iance )ith the or%er o$ s(s!ension3 =. Any $in%ing o$ re!ort contrary to the state ent a%e &y "a)yer (n%er oath sha"" &e gro(n% $or the i !osition o$ a ore severe !(nish ent or %is&ar ent. /t (st &e a"so note% that the !ractice o$ "a) is not a right &(t a ere !rivi"ege an% as s(ch, (st &o) to the inherent reg("atory !o)er o$ the Co(rt to e0act co !"iance )ith the "a)yer1s !(&"ic res!onsi&i"ities. +ence, the Co(rt notes the -e!ort an% -eco en%ation o$ the 5:C, to iss(e a reso"(tion a""o)ing the res( !tion $ro the !ractice o$ "a) o$ the res!on%ent.