CANDIDO SAN LUIS, complainant, vs. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA, respondent.

This is a complaint for the punishment of the disbarment of Benjamin B.
Pineda.

Complainant alleged that a few months before December 1941, Benjamin B.
Pineda had been expelled as member the Bar; that notwithstanding such
disbarment, Pineda continue to practice law; that in 1953, said Pineda was
convicted, by final judgment, of the crime of robbery; that although President
Magsaysay pardoned him conditionally, such pardon did not blot out the stain of
moral misconduct. So, complainant prayed for action for contempt or for a new
disbarment, if after 1941, said Pineda had been reinstated to membership of the
Bar.

The matter was referred to the Solicitor-General, whose report filed later
and in due course, recommended that respondent should only be “warned not to
practice law again.” Such recommendation rested on his finding that Pineda
continued to practice law in Jolo during the latter part of 1941 (i.e., after he
had been disbarred in July 1940)-but that no evidence proved legal practice by
respondent after 1941.

Our records do not show that Pineda has never been readmitted to the Bar.

Now, considering that 1941 is too far away, we approve the recommendation;
and the respondent is accordingly warned not to engage in the legal profession
again, until he is regularly re-admitted thereto. Needless to say, practice of
law by one who is disbarred constitutes contempt of court.
(U. S. vs. Ney,
8 Phil. 146; People vs. De Luna, 54 Off. Gaz., 6429.)

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.