Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lourdes De Dios for practicing law despite being suspended by the Supreme Court since 2001. According to Maniago, De Dios represented a Japanese national in a criminal case, civil case, and special proceedings case. De Dios claimed she had already served her 6-month suspension in 2001 and resumed practice after. The Court ruled that resumption to practice after suspension is not automatic, and outlined guidelines including filing a sworn statement after the suspension period stating the lawyer did not practice during suspension.
Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lourdes De Dios for practicing law despite being suspended by the Supreme Court since 2001. According to Maniago, De Dios represented a Japanese national in a criminal case, civil case, and special proceedings case. De Dios claimed she had already served her 6-month suspension in 2001 and resumed practice after. The Court ruled that resumption to practice after suspension is not automatic, and outlined guidelines including filing a sworn statement after the suspension period stating the lawyer did not practice during suspension.
Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lourdes De Dios for practicing law despite being suspended by the Supreme Court since 2001. According to Maniago, De Dios represented a Japanese national in a criminal case, civil case, and special proceedings case. De Dios claimed she had already served her 6-month suspension in 2001 and resumed practice after. The Court ruled that resumption to practice after suspension is not automatic, and outlined guidelines including filing a sworn statement after the suspension period stating the lawyer did not practice during suspension.
Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lourdes De Dios for practicing law despite being suspended by the Supreme Court since 2001. According to Maniago, De Dios represented a Japanese national in a criminal case, civil case, and special proceedings case. De Dios claimed she had already served her 6-month suspension in 2001 and resumed practice after. The Court ruled that resumption to practice after suspension is not automatic, and outlined guidelines including filing a sworn statement after the suspension period stating the lawyer did not practice during suspension.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
LIGAYA MANIAGO vs ATTY. LOURDES I.
DE DIOS A.C. No. 7472 March 30, 2010 FACTS: Ligaya Maniago filed a disbarment case against Atty. Lourdes De Dios for engaging in the practice of law despite having been suspended by the Supreme Court since 2001. According to Maniago, she filed a criminal case against a Japanese national before the RTC Olongapo. The accused was represented by Atty. De Dios in the criminal case, one civil case, and one special proceedings case. According to Atty. De Dios, she has already served the 6 months suspension in 2001. After that period she had resumed in the practice of law. According to the OBC, the lifting of the suspension is not automatic. ISSUE: Whether or not after suspension, the resumption to practice law is lifted automatically. RULING: No. The Court held that after the period of suspension, the resumption to practice law is not automatic. The Court issued the following guidelines: 1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty; 2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory; 3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension; 4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel; 5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order of suspension; 6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.
