Case Digest: Ibana-Andrade v. Atty. Moya, A.C. No. 8313, July 14, 2015

Summary: A suspended lawyer continued to practice law during her suspension.

Facts: Atty. Eva Paita-Moya was found guilty of gross misconduct and was suspended for one month from the practice of law, effective upon her receipt of the Decision. However, Atty. Moya continued to practice law despite receiving the Resolution regarding her suspension. She filed pleadings, appeared as counsel in courts, and continued receiving various fees for her services throughout the duration of her suspension. In her defense, she claimed that she never received the resolution that had allegedly suspended her. By logical inference, therefore, her sole defense is ignorance of the resolution that suspended her. 

Issue: Whether Atty. Moya is administratively liable for engaging in an unauthorized practice of law. 

Held: Yes. Her defense that she never received a copy of the resolution is untenable. Atty. Moya received the said resolution as per Registry Return Receipt No. 2320. Moreover, a Certification was issued regarding her suspension in another case (A.C. No. 7494) which had not yet been lifted. The Court had already stated the standard for discipline upon erring lawyers who continue practicing despite being suspended by the Court: Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,  willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. 

Atty. Paita-Moya is found GUILTY of violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for an additional period of 6 months from her 1-month suspension, totaling 7 months from service of this resolution. 

Read the full case here.