A.C. No.

5377, June 30, 2014

VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, v. ATTYS. ROMEO CALUBAQUIB AND JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.

This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this court orders a lawyer
suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all functions requiring the
application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This includes desisting from holding a
position in government requiring the authority to practice law.

Facts:

In the resolution, the court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule
1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of the Lawyer’s Oath. Respondents
allowed their secretaries to notarize documents in their stead, in violation of Sections 2455 and 2466
of the Notarial Law. This court suspended respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked
their notarial commissions, and disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years.

Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration, praying that respondents be
disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the resolution, this court denied
complainant Lingan’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II,
filed the ex parte clarificatory pleading with leave of court.

In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that, complainant Lingan wrote the Commission
on Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter’s
suspension from the practice of law.

After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, the Commission on Human Rights
En Banc issued the resolution, suspending him from his position as Director/Attorney VI of the
Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for Region II. According to the Commission on Human
Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga’s suspension from the practice of law “prevent[ed] [him] from assuming his
post [as Regional Director] for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is
suspended.”

Atty. Baliga argued that he cannot be suspended for acts not connected with his functions as
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director. According to Atty. Baliga, his suspension from the
practice of law did not include his suspension from public office. He prayed for clarification of this
court’s resolution “to prevent further injury and prejudice to [his] rights.”

court received a letter from complainant Lingan. In his letter, Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga
continued practicing law and discharging his functions as Commission on Human Rights Regional
Director, in violation of this court’s order of suspension.

Complainant Lingan allegedly received a copy of the Commission on Human Rights En Banc’s resolution
suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional Director.
On Atty. Baliga’s motion, the Commission reconsidered Atty. Baliga’s suspension and instead
admonished him for “violating the conditions of his commission as a notary public.”

Complainant Lingan claimed that the discharge of the functions of a Commission on Human Rights
Regional Director necessarily required the practice of law. A Commission on Human Rights Regional
Director must be a member of the bar and is designated as Attorney VI. Since this court suspended Atty.
Baliga from the practice of law, Atty. Baliga was in effect “a non-lawyer and was disqualified to hold the
position of [Regional Director] [during the effectivity of the order of suspension].” The Commission on
Human Rights, should have ordered Atty. Baliga to desist from performing his functions as Regional
Director. Complainant Lingan prayed that this court give “favorable attention and action on the matter.”

This court endorsed complainant Lingan’s letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for report and
recommendation.

report and recommendation the Office of the Bar Confidant found that the period of suspension of
Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga had already lapsed. It recommended that respondents be required to
file their respective motions to lift order of suspension with certifications from the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and the Executive Judge of the court where they might appear as counsel and state
that they desisted from practicing law during the period of suspension.

On the claim that the Commission on Human Rights allowed Atty. Baliga to perform his functions as
Regional Director during the period of suspension, the Office of the Bar Confidant said that the
Commission “deliberate[ly] disregard[ed]” this court’s order of suspension. According to the Office of
the Bar Confidant, the Commission on Human Rights had no power to “[alter, modify, or set aside any of
this court’s resolutions] which [have] become final and executory.”

Thus, with respect to Atty. Baliga, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that this court require
him to submit a certification from the Commission on Human Rights stating that he desisted from
performing his functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the practice of law.

The Office of the Bar Confidant further recommended that Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human
Rights be required to comment on complainant Lingan’s allegation that Atty. Baliga continued to
perform his functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the practice of law.

Atty. Baliga filed a manifestation, arguing that his suspension from the practice of law did not include
his suspension from public office. Atty. Baliga said, “[t]o stretch the coverage of [his suspension from
the practice of law] to [his] public office would be tantamount to violating his constitutional rights to
due process and to the statutory principle in law that what is not included is deemed excluded.

In the resolution this court required respondents to file their respective motions to lift order of
suspension considering the lapse of the period of suspension. This court further ordered Atty. Baliga
and the Commission on Human Rights to comment on complainant Lingan’s allegation that Atty. Baliga
continued performing his functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the practice of
law.
In compliance with this court’s order, Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga filed their respective motions to lift
order of suspension.

Atty. Baliga also filed his comment on complainant Lingan’s allegation that he continued performing his
functions as Regional Director during his suspension from the practice of law.

In his comment Atty. Baliga alleged that as Regional Director, he “perform[ed], generally, managerial
functions which did not require the practice of law. These managerial functions allegedly included
“[supervising the day to day operations of the regional office and its personnel, monitoring progress of
investigations conducted by the [Commission on Human Rights] Investigation Unit, “monitoring the
implementation of all other services and assistance programs of the [Commission on Human Rights] by
the different units at the regional level”; and “[supervising the budgetary requirement preparation and
disbursement of funds and expenditure of the [Regional Office].” The Commission allegedly has its own
“legal services unit which takes care of the legal services matters of the [Commission].

Stating that his functions as Regional Director did not require the practice of law, Atty. Baliga claimed
that he “faithfully complied] with [this court’s resolution suspending him from the practice of law.

The Commission on Human Rights filed its comment. It argued that “the penalty imposed upon Atty.
Baliga as a member of the bar is separate and distinct from any penalty that may be imposed upon
him as a public official for the same acts.” According to the Commission, Atty. Baliga’s suspension from
the practice of law is a “bar matter” while the imposition of penalty upon a Commission on Human
Rights official “is an entirely different thing, falling as it does within the exclusive authority of the
[Commission as] disciplining body.” Nevertheless, the Commission manifested that it would defer to
this court’s resolution of the issue and would “abide by whatever ruling or decision [this court] arrives at
on [the] matter.”

In reply to Atty. Baliga’s comment, complainant Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga again disobeyed this
court. Atty. Baliga failed to submit a certification from the Commission on Human Rights stating that he
was suspended from office and desisted from performing his functions as Regional Director.

As to Atty. Baliga’s claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as Regional Director and
only performed generally managerial functions, complainant Lingan countered that Atty. Baliga admitted
to defying the order of suspension. Atty. Baliga admitted to performing the functions of a “lawyer-
manager,” which under the landmark case of Cayetano v. Monsod constituted practice of law.
Complainant Lingan reiterated that the position of Regional Director/Attorney VI requires the officer “to
be a lawyer [in] good standing.” Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga, he had supervision and control
over Attorneys III, IV, and V. Being a “lawyer-manager,” Atty. Baliga practiced law while he held his
position as Regional Director.

With respect to Atty. Baliga’s claim that he was in good faith in reassuming his position as Regional
Director, complainant Lingan countered that if Atty. Baliga were really in good faith, he should have
followed the initial resolution of the Commission on Human Rights suspending him from office. Atty.
Baliga did not even furnish this court a copy of his motion for reconsideration of the Commission on
Human Right’s resolution suspending him from office. By “playing ignorant on what is ‘practice of law’,
twisting facts and philosophizing,” complainant Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga “[no longer has that]
moral vitality imperative to the title of an attorney.” Complainant Lingan prayed that Atty. Baliga be
disbarred.

this court lifted the order of suspension of Atty. Calubaquib. He was allowed to resume his practice of
law and perform notarial acts subject to compliance with the requirements for issuance of a notarial
commission.

On the other hand, this court referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report, and
recommendation Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift one-year suspension and the respective comments of
Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human Rights.

In its report and recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant stated that Atty. Baliga “should not
[have been] allowed to perform his functions, duties, and responsibilities [as Regional Director] which
[required acts constituting] practice of law.” Considering that Atty. Baliga claimed that he did not
perform his functions as Regional Director which required the practice of law, the Office of the Bar
Confidant recommended that the Commission on Human Rights be required to comment on this claim.
The Office of the Bar Confidant also recommended holding in abeyance the resolution of Atty. Baliga’s
motion to lift suspension “pending [the Commission on Human Right’s filing of comment].”

In the resolution, this court held in abeyance the resolution of Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift one-year
suspension. The Commission on Human Rights was ordered to comment on Atty. Baliga’s claim that he
did not practice law while he held his position as Regional Director.

In its comment, the Commission on Human Rights reiterated that the penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as
a member of the bar is separate from the penalty that might be imposed on him as Regional Director.
The Commission added that it is “of honest belief that the position of [Regional Director] is managerial
and does not [require the practice of law].” It again manifested that it will “abide by whatever ruling or
decision [this court] arrives on [the] matter.

Issue: whether Atty. Baliga’s motion to lift order of suspension should be granted.

RULING: NO

Atty. Baliga violated court’s order of suspension. We, therefore, suspend him further from the
practice of law for six months.

Practice of law is “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.

Work in government that requires the use of legal knowledge is considered practice of law.

The Commission on Human Rights is an independent office created under the Constitution with power
to investigate “all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It is divided into
regional offices with each office having primary responsibility to investigate human rights violations in its
territorial jurisdiction. Each regional office is headed by the Regional Director who is given the position
of Attorney VI.
Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the Investigation and Monitoring of Human Rights Violations
and Abuses, and the Provision of CHR Assistance, the Regional Director has the following powers and
functions:

a. To administer oaths or affirmations with respect to “[Commission on Human Rights] matters;”

b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional offices;

c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial investigation of human rights complaints in the absence of
the legal officer or investigator;

d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among parties and discuss “immediate courses of
action and protection remedies and/or possible submission of the matter to an alternative dispute
resolution”;

e. To issue Commission on Human Rights processes, including notices, letter-invitations, orders, or

f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer.

These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations are
usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public — officers who are necessarily
members of the bar. Investigating human rights complaints are performed primarily by the
Commission’s legal officer. Discussing immediate courses of action and protection remedies and
reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the legal officer require
the use of extensive legal knowledge.

The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director
constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be an attorney — a member of the bar in
good standing and authorized to practice law. When the Regional Director loses this authority, such
as when he or she is disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a
necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or suspended lawyer must
desist from holding the position of Regional Director.

This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law for one year on June 15, 2006, “effective
immediately.” From the time Atty. Baliga received the court’s order of suspension on July 5, 2006, he
has been without authority to practice law. He lacked a necessary qualification to his position as
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director/Attorney VI.

CHR In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional Director, the Commission on Human
Rights did not violate Atty. Baliga’s right to due process. First, he was only suspended after investigation
by the Commission on Human Rights Legal and Investigation Office. Second, the Commission gave Atty.
Baliga an opportunity to be heard when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

Atty. Baliga’s performance of generally managerial functions was not supported by the record. It was
also immaterial. He held the position of Commission on Human Rights Regional Director because of
his authority to practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was disqualified to hold that
position.
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director constituted
practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as Regional Director.

Under Section 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.

In Molina v. Atty. Magat, this court suspended further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the practice of law
for six months for practicing his profession despite this court’s previous order of suspension.

We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his position as Regional Director despite lack
of authority to practice law.

We note that the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution reconsidering its first
resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional Director/Attorney VI. Instead, the Commission
admonished Atty. Baliga and sternly warned him that repeating the same offense will cause his
dismissal from the service.
The grounds relied upon the motion are not sufficient to convince the Commission that Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga is totally blameless
and should not suffer the appropriate penalty for breach of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer’s oath.

The Commission, in the exercise of its authority to discipline, is concerned with the transgression by Atty. Baliga of his oath of
office as government employee. As records have it, the Commission granted Atty. Baliga authority to secure a commission as a
notary public. With this, he is mandated to act as a notary public in accordance with the rules and regulations, to include the
conditions expressly set forth by the Commission.

With the findings clearly enunciated in the Supreme Court resolution in SC Administrative Case No. 5277 dated 15 June 2006,
the Commission cannot close its eyes to the act of Atty. Baliga that is clearly repugnant to the conduct of an officer reposed
with public trust.

This is enough just cause to have this piece of word, short of being enraged, and censure Atty. Baliga for having contravened
the conditions of his commission as a notary public. What was granted to Atty. Baliga is merely a privilege, the exercise of which
requires such high esteem to be in equal footing with the constitutional mandate of the Commission. Clearly, Atty. Baliga should
keep in mind that the Commission exacts commensurate solicitude from whatever privilege the Commission grants of every
official and employee.

The Commission notes that by now Atty. Baliga is serving the one year suspension imposed on him pursuant to the Supreme
Court resolution. The Commission believes that the further suspension of Atty. Baliga from the office may be too harsh in the
meantime that the Supreme Court penalty is being served. This Commission is prevailed upon that the admonition of Atty.
Baliga as above expressed is sufficient to complete the cycle of penalizing an erring public officer.

WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby modifies its ruling in Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013 and imposes the penalty of
admonition with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will merit a penalty of dismissal from the service.

The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution. This resolution caused Atty. Baliga
to reassume his position as Regional Director/Attorney VI despite lack of authority to practice law.

We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the
practice of law. The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and other issuances, modify or defy this
court’s orders of suspension from the practice of law. Although the Commission on Human Rights has
the power to appoint its officers and employees, it can only retain those with the necessary
qualifications in the positions they are holding.

As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law is a “privilege burdened with conditions. To
enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must “[adhere] to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
[maintain] the highest degree of morality[,] and [faithfully comply] with the rules of [the] legal
profession.

WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga from the practice of law for six (6) months.
Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and six (6) months of suspension from the practice of law,
effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a copy of this resolution.

SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant,
and the Commission on Human Rights.

SO ORDERED.