1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

A.C. No. 7593. March 11, 2015.*

ALVIN S. FELICIANO, complainant, vs. ATTY. CARMELITA

BAUTISTA-LOZADA, respondent.

Attorneys; Suspension; When the Supreme Court (SC) orders a lawyer

suspended from the practice of law, as in the instant case, the lawyer must
desist from performing all functions requiring the application of legal
knowledge within the period of suspension.—Indeed, this Court has the
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this Court orders
a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, as in the instant case, the
lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the application
of legal knowledge within the period of suspension.
Same; Practice of Law; Practice of law embraces 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
characteristics of the legal profession or rendering any kind of service
which requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.—Suffice it
to say that practice of law embraces “any

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal

procedure, knowledge, training and experience.” It includes “[performing]
acts which are characteristics of the [legal] profession” or “[rendering any
kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge
or skill.” In the instant case, Atty. Lozada’s guilt is undisputed. Based on the
records, there is no doubt that Atty. Lozada’s actuations, that is, in appearing
and signing as counsel for and in behalf of her husband, conducting or
offering stipulation/admission of facts, conducting direct and cross-
examination, all constitute practice of law. Furthermore, the findings of the
IBP would disclose that such actuations of Atty. Lozada of actively
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

engaging in the practice of law in June-July 2007 were done within the
period of her two (2)-year suspension considering that she was suspended
from the practice of law by this Court in May 4, 2006. It would then appear
that, at the very least, Atty. Lozada cannot practice law from 2006 to 2008.
Thus, it is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for and in behalf of her
husband in Civil Case No. 101-V-07 and actively participated in the
proceedings therein in June-July 2007, or within the two (2)-year
suspension, she, therefore, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Same; Disbarment; Suspension; Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, as amended, willful disobedience to any lawful
order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law.—Atty. Lozada’s defense of good faith fails to convince. She
knew very well that at the time she represented her husband, she is still
serving her two (2)-year suspension order. Yet, she failed to inform the court
about it. Neither did she seek any clearance or clarification from the Court if
she can represent her husband. While we understand her devotion and desire
to defend her husband whom she believed has suffered grave injustice, Atty.
Lozada should not forget that she is first and foremost, an officer of the
court who is bound to obey the lawful order of the Court. Under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, willful disobedience to
any lawful order of a superior court is a ground for disbarment or
suspension from the practice of law.
Same; Penalties; Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty,
but the Supreme Court (SC) recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino
culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a
helping hand to a family member, more so, in

247

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 247

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

this case, to a spouse.—Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher

penalty, but this Court recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino
culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a
helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus,
considering that Atty. Lozada’s actuation was prompted by her affection to
her husband and that in essence, she was not representing a client but rather
a spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate the severeness of her penalty.
Following the recent case of Victor C. Lingan v. Atty. Romeo Calubaquib
and Jimmy P. Baliga, 727 SCRA 341 (2014), citing Molina v. Atty. Magat,
672 SCRA 1 (2012), where this Court suspended further respondents from
the practice of law for six (6) months for practicing their profession despite
this court’s previous order of suspension, we, thus, impose the same penalty
on Atty. Lozada for representing her husband as counsel despite lack of
authority to practice law.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

Same; Disbarment; Suspension; The Supreme Court (SC), in the

exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a less severe
punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming the errant lawyer is
possible.—Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law
profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to preserve the
nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the Supreme Court has the
plenary power to discipline erring lawyers through this kind of proceedings,
it does so in the most vigilant manner so as not to frustrate its preservative
principle. The Court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is
inclined to impose a less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of
reforming the errant lawyer is possible.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Disbarment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a Petition for Disbarment1 dated August 2, 2007

filed by Alvin S. Feliciano (complainant) against respon-

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 1-5.

248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

dent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada (Atty. Lozada) for violation

of Section 27,2 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows:
On December 13, 2005, the Court En Banc promulgated a
Resolution in A.C. No. 6656 entitled “Bobie Rose V. Frias v. Atty.
Carmencita Bautista-Lozada”3 suspending Atty. Lozada for
violation of Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada is hereby

found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision of
the Court of Appeals. She is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of two (2) years from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished all courts of the land, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Office of the Bar Confidant,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

for their information and guidance, and let it be entered in respondent’s

personal records.
SO ORDERED.4

_______________

2 Section 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what

grounds.—A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as
attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case
without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of
gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpcactice.
3 Rollo, pp. 7-29.
4 Id., at pp. 27-28. (Emphasis in the original)

249

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 249

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

On May 4, 2006, the Court denied with finality Atty. Lozada’s

motion for reconsideration.5
However, on June 5, 2007, in an action for injunction with prayer
for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction docketed as Civil Case No. 101-V-07 entitled
“Edilberto Lozada, et al. v. Alvin S. Feliciano, et al.,” where
complainant was one of the respondents, complainant lamented that
Atty. Lozada appeared as counsel for the plaintiff and her husband,
Edilberto Lozada, and actively participated in the proceedings of the
case before Branch 75 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela
City. To prove his allegation, complainant submitted certified true
copies of the minutes of the hearings, dated June 12, 2007, July 3,
2007 and July 6, 2007, wherein Atty. Lozada signed her name as one
of the counsels,6 as well as the transcript of stenographic notes
showing that Atty. Lozada conducted direct examination and cross-
examination of the witnesses during the trial proceedings.7
Complainant argued that the act of Atty. Lozada in appearing as
counsel while still suspended from the practice of law constitutes
willful disobedience to the resolutions of the Court which suspended
her from the practice of law for two (2) years.
On September 12, 2007, the Court resolved to require Atty.
Lozada to comment on the complaint against him.8
In her Comment9 dated November 19, 2007, Atty. Lozada
explained that she was forced by circumstances and her desire to
defend the rights of her husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

She claimed that she believed in good faith that her appearance as
wife of Edilberto Lozada is not within the

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 14-29.

6 Id., at pp. 30-38.
7 Id., at pp. 39-322.
8 Id., at p. 323.
9 Id., at pp. 329-335.

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

prohibition to practice law, considering that she is defending her

husband and not a client. She insisted that her husband is a victim of
grave injustice, and his reputation and honor are at stake; thus, she
has no choice but to give him legal assistance.10
On January 30, 2008, the Court referred the instant case to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
recommendation.11
In its Report and Recommendation12 dated March 9, 2009, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline
(IBP-CBD) found Atty. Lozada guilty of violating Rules 1.01 &
1.02, Rule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the
terms of her suspension from the practice of law as imposed by the
Court. Thus, the IBP-CBD recommended the disbarment of Atty.
Lozada.
On May 14, 2011, however, the IBP-Board of Governors
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and
recommendation of the IBP-CBD such that it recommended instead
that Atty. Lozada be suspended from the practice of law for three (3)
months.

Ruling

We adopt the ruling of the IBP-Board of Governors with

modification.
Indeed, this Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law. When this Court orders a lawyer suspended from the
practice of law, as in the instant case, the lawyer must desist from
performing all functions requiring

_______________

10 Id., at p. 332.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

11 Id., at p. 339.
12 Id., at pp. 772-775.

251

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 251

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

the application of legal knowledge within the period of

suspension.13
Suffice it to say that practice of law embraces “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 characteristics of the [legal] profession” or “[rendering
any kind of] service [which] requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill.”14
In the instant case, Atty. Lozada’s guilt is undisputed. Based on
the records, there is no doubt that Atty. Lozada’s actuations, that is,
in appearing and signing as counsel for and in behalf of her husband,
conducting or offering stipulation/admission of facts, conducting
direct and cross-examination, all constitute practice of law.
Furthermore, the findings of the IBP would disclose that such
actuations of Atty. Lozada of actively engaging in the practice of
law in June-July 2007 were done within the period of her two (2)-
year suspension considering that she was suspended from the
practice of law by this Court in May 4, 2006. It would then appear
that, at the very least, Atty. Lozada cannot practice law from 2006 to
2008. Thus, it is clear that when Atty. Lozada appeared for and in
behalf of her husband in Civil Case No. 101-V-07 and actively
participated in the proceedings therein in June-July 2007, or within
the two (2)-year suspension, she, therefore, engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Atty. Lozada’s defense of good faith fails to convince. She knew
very well that at the time she represented her husband, she is still
serving her two (2)-year suspension order. Yet, she failed to inform
the court about it. Neither did she seek any clearance or clarification
from the Court if she can represent her husband. While we
understand her devotion and desire to defend her husband whom she
believed has suffered grave

_______________

13 See Lingan v. Calubaquib, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 341.
14 Id.

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

injustice, Atty. Lozada should not forget that she is first and
foremost, an officer of the court who is bound to obey the lawful
order of the Court.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior
court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of
law:

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court;

grounds therefor.—A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a
party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.15

Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty, but this

Court recognizes the fact that it is part of the Filipino culture that
amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a
helping hand to a family member, more so, in this case, to a spouse.
Thus, considering that Atty. Lozada’s actuation was prompted by her
affection to her husband and that in essence, she was not
representing a client but rather a spouse, we deem it proper to
mitigate the severeness of her penalty.
Following the recent case of Victor C. Lingan v. Atty. Romeo
Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga,16 citing Molina v. Atty.

_______________

15 Emphasis ours.
16 Supra note 13.

253

VOL. 752, MARCH 11, 2015 253

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

Magat,17 where this Court suspended further respondents from

the practice of law for six (6) months for practicing their profession
despite this court’s previous order of suspension, we, thus, impose

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

the same penalty on Atty. Lozada for representing her husband as

counsel despite lack of authority to practice law.
Disbarment of lawyers is a proceeding that aims to purge the law
profession of unworthy members of the bar. It is intended to
preserve the nobility and honor of the legal profession. While the
Supreme Court has the plenary power to discipline erring lawyers
through this kind of proceedings, it does so in the most vigilant
manner so as not to frustrate its preservative principle. The Court, in
the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, is inclined to impose a
less severe punishment if, through it, the end desire of reforming the
errant lawyer is possible.18
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Carmelita S.
Bautista-Lozada is found GUILTY of violating Section 27,19 Rule
138 of the Rules of Court, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period
of six (6) months from the practice of law, with a WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant a more severe
penalty.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished all courts, the Office of
the Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for their
information and guidance. The Office of the Bar Confidant is
DIRECTED to append a copy of this Decision to respondent’s
record as member of the Bar.
Atty. Lozada is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of
her receipt of this Decision, so that we can determine the reckoning
point when her suspension shall take effect.
This Decision is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.

_______________

17 A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 1, 7.

18 Arma v. Montevilla, 581 Phil. 1, 8; 559 SCRA 1, 9-10 (2008).
19 Supra note 2.

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Feliciano vs. Bautista-Lozada

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Villarama, Jr., Reyes and Jardeleza,

JJ., concur.

Atty. Carmelita S. Bautista-Lozada suspended from practice of

law for six (6) months for violating Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court, with warning against repetition of similar offense.

Notes.—Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are only

confined to the issue of whether or not the respondent-lawyer is still

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
1/17/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 752

fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar and that the

only concern is his administrative liability. (Tria-Samonte vs. Obias,
707 SCRA 1 [2013])
The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of
law is whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or
herself in conduct and character. (Que vs. Revilla, Jr., 739 SCRA
459 [2014])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fb1bd4abfbfdf2a3b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9