"x x x.
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:
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 so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
In Molina v. Atty. Magat[20], 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 dated April 13, 2007, 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 resolution with CHR (III) No. A2007-045 dated April 13, 2007 reads:
In his Motion for Reconsideration dated March 15, 2007, respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga prays before the Honorable Commission to recall and annul his suspension as Regional Director/Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights – Regional Office No. II, per 16 January 2007 Commission en Banc Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013.
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.[21] (Emphasis in the original)
The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April 13, 2007. 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.[22] 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[23], 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.”[24] 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.”[25]
x x x."
