Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN BANC
|
CARLOS REYES, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x VIOLETA TAHAW, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x MAR YUSON, Complainant, -versus- ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN, Respondent. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x |
A.C. No. 5835 A.C. No. 6051 A.C. No. 6441 A.C. No. 6955 Present: CARPIO, CARPIO-MORALES, VELASCO, JR.,* NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: August
10, 2010
|
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
This
refers to the undated Petition filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
on July 28, 2009 by Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, praying that he be reinstated as
member in good standing of the Philippine Bar and be allowed to resume the
practice of law, claiming that he had already served the penalty of suspension imposed
on him, and that he is now reformed.
As
background, four (4) administrative cases were filed against Atty. Jeremias R.
Vitan, in each of which he was found guilty and meted the penalty of suspension
from the practice of law.
In
the first case, A.C. No. 6441, (Violeta
R. Tahaw v. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan),
promulgated on October 21, 2004,[1]
Atty. Vitan was suspended for
six (6)months, effective immediately upon receipt
of the Decision. He was further ordered
to return the amount of P30,000 to complainant for legal services he did not render. The records disclose that respondent received
the Decision on November 12, 2004 and the period of suspension would have ended
on May 12, 2005.
In
A.C. No. 5835, (Carlos B. Reyes v. Atty.
Jeremias R. Vitan), promulgated on April 15, 2005,[2] Atty. Vitan was suspended for six (6) months;
and ordered to pay complainant P17,000.00 with interest of 12% per annum
from the date of the promulgation of the Decision until the full amount shall
have been returned. Per records, the
Court’s decision was received by him on May 13, 2005, and his suspension would
have ended on November 13, 2005.
In
A.C. No. 6955 (Mar Yuson v. Atty.
Jeremias R. Vitan), promulgated on July 27, 2006,[3]
respondent was found liable for his failure to pay a just debt in the amount of
P100,000.00. Upon investigation,
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) imposed the penalty of Suspension
for two (2) years. This was modified by
the Court after finding that there was partial payment of the loan, and the
penalty was reduced to six (6) months suspension with warning, effective upon
receipt of the Decision. In a Motion to Lift Order of Suspension, respondent
moved for the reconsideration of the decision, asserting that there was full
payment of the loan. The motion was denied in the Resolution dated
March 6, 2007.
In
this connection, the OBC noted respondent’s shrewdness by moving out of his
given address to evade receipt of the copy of the decision/resolutions of the
Court. After diligent efforts at
searching for respondent’s correct address proved unavailing, the Court in its Resolution
dated July 17, 2007, considered the March 6, 2007 Resolution as having been
served on respondent.
In
the decision in the fourth case, A.C. No. 6051, (Celia Arroyo-Pesidio v. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan), promulgated on
April 2, 2007,[4]
respondent was found to have failed to render the legal services sought after
he had received the amount of P100,000, and was once again, suspended
for one (1) year, with stern warning. The
Decision was received on April 18, 2007, so the suspension period should have
lapsed on April 18, 2008.
Upon
the recommendation of the OBC, the four administrative cases were consolidated.[5]
In
a Report dated February 23, 2010, the OBC noted that respondent has been repeatedly
suspended from the practice of law,
for an aggregate period of 30 months or 2 ˝ years. Accordingly, respondent should have served the orders of suspension successively
pursuant to the Court’s resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857, entitled “Gabriel de la Paz v. Judge Santos B. Adiong,”
where the Court clearly stated that “in case of two or more suspensions, the
same shall be served successively by the erring respondent.”[6] It is,
therefore, incumbent upon respondent to show to the Court that he has desisted
from the practice of law for a period of at least 2 ˝ years.
The
Court, in the recent case of Ligaya Maniago
v. Atty.
Thus, applying the guidelines in Maniago, the Court Resolved to GRANT Respondent’s Petition for Reinstatement,
effective upon his submission to the Court of a Sworn Statement attesting to
the fact:
1) that he has completely served the four (4)
suspensions imposed on him successively;
2) that he had desisted from the
practice of law, and has not appeared as counsel in any court during the
periods of suspension, as follows:
(a) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 5835 from May 13, 2005 to November 13, 2005;
(b) One (1) year suspension in A.C. No. 6051 from April 18, 2007 to April 18, 2008;
(c) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 6441 from November 12, 2004 to May 12, 2005; and
(d) Six (6) months suspension in A.C. No. 6955 from date of receipt of the Resolution dated March 6, 2007 denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated July 27, 2006.
3) that he has returned the sums of
money to the complainants as ordered by
the Court in the following cases,
attaching proofs thereof:
(a)
In A.C. No. 5835 – the sum of P17,000 with interest of 12% per annum from the date of promulgation of
the Decision until the full amount shall have been returned; and
(b)
In A.C. No. 6441 – the amount of P30,000.
Atty.
Jeremias R. Vitan is further directed to
FURNISH copies of the Sworn Statement to the Integrated Bar of the
Any
finding or report contrary to the statements made by the Respondent under oath
shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or
disbarment, as may be warranted.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
(on official leave) PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO
C. Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE
CATRAL Associate Justice |
* On official leave.
[1]
Second
Division; 484 Phil. 1, 9 (2004).
[2]
Third
Division; 496 Phil. 1, 6 (2005).
[3] En Banc; 496 SCRA 540.
[4] Third
Division; 520 SCRA 1-12.
[5] Resolution of the Special Third Division, dated June 21, 2010.
[6] En Banc Resolution dated July 29, 2005.
[7] A.C. No. 7472, March 10, 2010