FELICIANO V ATTY.

BAUTISTA - LOZADA

FACTS:
Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty. Carmencita Bautista
Lozada in representing his husband Edilberto Lozada in the latters case against the
complainant on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged that Atty. Bautista Lozada appeared as
a counsel for his husband and actively participated in the court proceedings while she is
still suspended from the practice of law in reference to a court judgment on December 15,
2005. Feliciano argued that the act of the respondent constitutes willful disobedience to a
court order. In her reply, Atty Bautista Lozada claims that she was only forced by the
situation that she needed to defend the right of his husband who is embroiled in a legal
dispute. She believes that since she is representing his husband and not a client, it is not
within the prohibition of the law. The case was referred to the IBP for investigation and
the IBP Investigating Officer recommended disbarment for Atty. Bautista Lozada in
violation of Rule 1.01, 1.02 and Rule 18.01 of the CPR. The IBP-BOG adopted the
recommendation with modification to suspension of only 3 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Bautista Lozada warrant disciplinary action?

RULING:

Yes. Atty. Bautista Lozadas act of representing his husband in court

proceedings while still serving her suspension is an act prohibited by law that should
warrant disciplinary action. Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court clearly stated
that a willful disobedience of any lawful order of the superior court, or for corruptly or
willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so is a
ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. The practice of law is
defined as any activity, in or out of the court, which requires that application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. In the case at bar, Atty. Bautista-Lozada
in appearing, signing for and in behalf of his husband in pleadings and court proceedings
constitutes practice of law where she should desist herself from engaging during the
period of her suspension. The prior judgement of her suspension was promulgated on
December 15, 2005, therefore she cannot engage in the practice of law until December
2007.