January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC : January 12, 2010] QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER CLERK OF COURT - BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW :
[A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC : January 12, 2010]
QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER CLERK OF COURT - BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated January 12, 2010
"A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC - QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court - BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW
This is a motion for reconsideration denominated as Twin Motions[1] filed by Atty. Karen M. Siverio-Buffe (Atty. Buffe) against the Decision[2] of the Court finding her guilty of professional misconduct for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713[3] and the Code of Professional Responsibility, by engaging in private practice within the one-year period of limitation provided under Section 7(b)(2) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, Romblon where she previously worked as Clerk of Court VI.
Atty. Buffe asks for leniency on the ground of her voluntary desistance in her appearance before RTC-Branch 81. She explains that she did not appear in her old office in contemplation of Section 7(b)(2). She claims that her appearances before her old office as reported by the presiding judge of RTC-Branch 81 did not constitute "practice of law" considering that the hearings in the cases were cut short by postponements and constituted merely "physical appearance," not "legal appearance." In other words, she argues that there was no opportunity to actually apply legal knowledge, training or skill constituting "practice of law" during those appearances before RTC-Branch 81.
Atty. Buffe also denies that she filed multiple recourses in court and displayed a cavalier attitude. She claims that the actions she filed were made in good faith and for the purpose of ascertaining how Section 7(b)(2) should be interpreted. She posits that she did not inform the lower courts (where the petitions for declaratory relief were pending), as the thought did not occur to her; she believed that there was no forum-shopping or litis pendentia under the circumstances. In this regard, she moves for a joint hearing of the present case and G.R. No. 187119,[4] a petition/appeal by certiorari questioning the dismissal of her Petition for Declaratory Relief in SCA No. 08120423 filed before the Court and now pending with the First Division.
After due consideration, we resolve to deny the Twin Motions.
Atty. Buffe adds imagined qualifications to what constitutes practice of law as defined and settled in Cayetano v. Monsod.[5] We also previously stated that private practice of law contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature wherein one habitually or customarily holds oneself to the public as a lawyer.[6] In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[7] the Court further explained what constitutes practice of law:
Moreover, we cannot accept Atty. Buffe's excuse to justify her resort to multiple actions in courts. As a lawyer, she was bound to exercise prudence and discretion in the conduct of her affairs, especially in her professional actions. As we explained in our Decision, her conduct in this regard belied her claim of good faith and showed her clear intention to search for a court that would render an interpretation of Section 7(b)(2) favorable to her situation. At any rate, and even with benefit of doubt that her only goal was to know the proper interpretation of Section 7(b)(2), the means she used to achieve this end ran counter to her duty as a lawyer to act candidly and honestly before the courts.
Finally, we deny the motion for joint hearing of the present case and G.R. No. 187119, as the allegations in Atty. Buffe's Twin Motions fail to show how these two cases "are intimately linked" so as to necessitate a joint hearing.[8] We observe, in fact, that her request runs counter to her position that the present case refers merely to the implementation of Section 7(b)(2), while G.R. No. 187119 tackles the alleged invalidity of the this provision.[9]
In sum, we hold that the Twin Motions do not present any substantial arguments that would warrant a correction, modification or alteration of our earlier ruling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Twin Motions are hereby DENIED."
Perez, J., no part.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
"A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC - QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER Clerk of Court - BRANCH 81, ROMBLON, ROMBLON ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW
This is a motion for reconsideration denominated as Twin Motions[1] filed by Atty. Karen M. Siverio-Buffe (Atty. Buffe) against the Decision[2] of the Court finding her guilty of professional misconduct for violation of Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713[3] and the Code of Professional Responsibility, by engaging in private practice within the one-year period of limitation provided under Section 7(b)(2) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 81, Romblon where she previously worked as Clerk of Court VI.
Atty. Buffe asks for leniency on the ground of her voluntary desistance in her appearance before RTC-Branch 81. She explains that she did not appear in her old office in contemplation of Section 7(b)(2). She claims that her appearances before her old office as reported by the presiding judge of RTC-Branch 81 did not constitute "practice of law" considering that the hearings in the cases were cut short by postponements and constituted merely "physical appearance," not "legal appearance." In other words, she argues that there was no opportunity to actually apply legal knowledge, training or skill constituting "practice of law" during those appearances before RTC-Branch 81.
Atty. Buffe also denies that she filed multiple recourses in court and displayed a cavalier attitude. She claims that the actions she filed were made in good faith and for the purpose of ascertaining how Section 7(b)(2) should be interpreted. She posits that she did not inform the lower courts (where the petitions for declaratory relief were pending), as the thought did not occur to her; she believed that there was no forum-shopping or litis pendentia under the circumstances. In this regard, she moves for a joint hearing of the present case and G.R. No. 187119,[4] a petition/appeal by certiorari questioning the dismissal of her Petition for Declaratory Relief in SCA No. 08120423 filed before the Court and now pending with the First Division.
After due consideration, we resolve to deny the Twin Motions.
Atty. Buffe adds imagined qualifications to what constitutes practice of law as defined and settled in Cayetano v. Monsod.[5] We also previously stated that private practice of law contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature wherein one habitually or customarily holds oneself to the public as a lawyer.[6] In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[7] the Court further explained what constitutes practice of law:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law, incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263).Atty. Buffe's acts of appearing in cases before RTC-Branch 81 in representation of her clients constituted practice of law. Even if the proceedings involved hearings that were postponed by motions, she still appeared in court as a lawyer to protect her clients' interest. That she later voluntarily withdrew as counsel in the cases did not erase the violation she-had already committed under Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Moreover, we cannot accept Atty. Buffe's excuse to justify her resort to multiple actions in courts. As a lawyer, she was bound to exercise prudence and discretion in the conduct of her affairs, especially in her professional actions. As we explained in our Decision, her conduct in this regard belied her claim of good faith and showed her clear intention to search for a court that would render an interpretation of Section 7(b)(2) favorable to her situation. At any rate, and even with benefit of doubt that her only goal was to know the proper interpretation of Section 7(b)(2), the means she used to achieve this end ran counter to her duty as a lawyer to act candidly and honestly before the courts.
Finally, we deny the motion for joint hearing of the present case and G.R. No. 187119, as the allegations in Atty. Buffe's Twin Motions fail to show how these two cases "are intimately linked" so as to necessitate a joint hearing.[8] We observe, in fact, that her request runs counter to her position that the present case refers merely to the implementation of Section 7(b)(2), while G.R. No. 187119 tackles the alleged invalidity of the this provision.[9]
In sum, we hold that the Twin Motions do not present any substantial arguments that would warrant a correction, modification or alteration of our earlier ruling.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Twin Motions are hereby DENIED."
Perez, J., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] To Re-open A.M. No. 08-6-3520 RTC and Reconsider the Decision (En Banc) Promulgated August 19, 2009 and for a Joint Hearing of the Petition (G.R. No. 187119-1st Division) and This Motion for Reconsideration, for Equitable and Humanitarian Considerations and for Expediency.
[2] Dated August 19, 2009.
[3] Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[4] On the proper interpretation of Section 7(b) of RA No. 6713.
[5] G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210, 214.
[6] Lim-Santiago v. Sagucio, A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 10, 24.
[7] 105 Phil. 173, 176 (1959).
[8] Page 21 of the Twin Motions.
[9] Page 18 of the Twin Motions.
