ANDY DELA VICTORIA CANONOY, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JOSE B. GUIBONE, RESPONDENT.

Canonoy versus Guibone

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment or disciplinary action brought by Andy Dela Victoria Canonoy against Atty. Jose B. Guibone. Canonoy, together with his five siblings as heirs of the late Angelita Dela Victoria Canonoy, charged the respondent with notarizing a falsified Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate even though the heirs never appeared before him and their signatures were forged. The case matters because it fixes a rule every lawyer must know: when does a suspension from the practice of law actually begin to run, and may a lawyer choose the date himself by quietly stopping work before the Supreme Court has spoken? The Court answers both questions here.

Procedural History

The complaint was investigated, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines took action on it. The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, then issued a Resolution dated February 25, 2025, finding the respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year for one violation of the notarial rules in bad faith, revoked his notarial commission if existing, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately. It imposed a fine of 100,001 pesos for another violation of the notarial rules in bad faith, and suspended him for another year for making untruthful statements in an affidavit submitted as evidence in court. The respondent received that Resolution on May 13, 2025. Instead of filing the required manifestation that his suspension had started, he filed a Manifestation dated June 25, 2025, asking that he be allowed to resume practice on January 30, 2026, on the claim that he had already stopped practicing law on January 30, 2024. The complainant filed a Comment dated July 17, 2025, opposing the request. The matter thus came before the Supreme Court in this same administrative proceeding, on the respondent's own Manifestation.

Facts

The complainant and his five siblings, as heirs of the late Angelita Dela Victoria Canonoy, accused the respondent of notarizing a falsified Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate dated September 22, 2015. The heirs said they never appeared before him and that the signatures on the document were forged. Evidence showed that at the time of the supposed notarization, the heirs were in different locations in the Philippines and abroad.

The investigation revealed more. The respondent maintained multiple notarial offices, allowed his staff to sign documents on his behalf, used multiple notarial seals, and notarized documents upon presentation of only a community tax certificate. He admitted all of these acts.

The Supreme Court found him guilty and imposed the suspensions and fine in its Resolution of February 25, 2025, which he received on May 13, 2025. He then claimed that he had voluntarily ceased practicing law on January 30, 2024, upon receiving a Notice of Resolution from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and asked to resume on January 30, 2026. The complainant opposed this, arguing that the suspension should be counted only from receipt of the Supreme Court's Resolution, because an Integrated Bar resolution is merely recommendatory and does not become final without the Court's action. The complainant further alleged that the respondent actually continued practicing law during 2024 and 2025, including by serving as Legal Unit Head and Regional Legal Officer of the Department of Education in the CARAGA region.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's alleged voluntary cessation from the practice of law on January 30, 2024 may be credited as service of the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific codal article; it applies the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which the respondent was found to have violated. The governing rule on the commencement of suspension is stated by the Court itself in its ruling, quoted under the Ruling below.

Ruling

The Court denied the relief prayed for in the Manifestation. On the sole issue, it held that the respondent's claim of voluntary cessation on January 30, 2024 cannot be given legal effect. The Court stressed at the outset that resolutions of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are merely recommendatory in nature and do not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur. It recalled its guidelines in the Brillantes case: suspension takes effect only upon the lawyer's receipt of the decision or resolution imposing the penalty, and the lifting of the suspension is not automatic but is effected only upon the lawyer's submission of the required sworn statement of compliance to the proper offices, attesting that the period of suspension has been fully served and that the lawyer has desisted from the practice of law during the entire duration. Citing Calixto versus Balleros, the Court stressed that lawyers may not benefit from their own acts or omissions in a manner that would allow them to escape disciplinary action, and that the commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the power of the erring lawyer and may not be made dependent on his or her convenience.

The Court then stated the rule squarely:

The service of the penalty of suspension is reckoned only from the lawyer's receipt of the Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty. A lawyer's unilateral cessation from the practice of law does not constitute service of the penalty.

It added that the respondent may not rely on receipt of an Integrated Bar resolution to fix the commencement of his suspension, because such resolutions are recommendatory and do not attain finality absent action by the Court. Until the Court acts and the lawyer is duly notified, no penalty of suspension may be deemed to have commenced. Accordingly, his suspension began only upon his receipt of the Court's Resolution dated February 25, 2025, on May 13, 2025, and cannot be reckoned from any earlier date. Since the lifting of a suspension is not automatic and requires a sworn statement of compliance, the respondent had not yet fully served the penalty, and his Manifestation lacked basis. Finally, reiterating Valdez versus Hipe, the Court noted that administrative suspension is lifted instantly upon the filing of a sworn statement of compliance, with no further confirmation from the Court required, and that the Office of the Bar Confidant is tasked to record such filings; any finding or report contrary to the statements made under oath shall be a ground for more severe punishment, or even disbarment.

Doctrine

Three rules must be retained. First, the service of the penalty of suspension from the practice of law is reckoned only from the lawyer's receipt of the Supreme Court's decision or resolution imposing the penalty; a unilateral cessation from practice does not count as service. Second, Integrated Bar of the Philippines resolutions are merely recommendatory and do not attain finality without the Court's imprimatur, so receipt of such a resolution cannot start the running of the suspension. Third, the lifting of a suspension is not automatic; it is effected only upon the lawyer's filing of a sworn statement of compliance attesting that the full period has been served and that the lawyer desisted from practice during the entire duration, and upon such filing the suspension is lifted instantly without need of further confirmation from the Court. These rules rest on the principle that a lawyer may not benefit from his own acts or omissions, and that the commencement of the penalty must be placed beyond the erring lawyer's control.

Disposition

The Court noted the Manifestation and the Comment, and denied the respondent's request that his alleged voluntary cessation from practice on January 30, 2024 be credited as service of his suspension.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the service of the penalty of suspension is reckoned only from the lawyer's receipt of the Court's resolution imposing it, and a unilateral cessation from practice does not constitute service. Examiners use this case to test the commencement and lifting of administrative suspension, the merely recommendatory character of Integrated Bar resolutions, and the sworn statement of compliance requirement.