WEEK 8 | CASE # 18

TAN v. GUMBA
AC No. 9000, 10 January 2018
NATURE OF ACTION Complainant: Tomas P. Tan Jr.
Respondent: Atty. Haide V. Gumba
KEYWORDS ISSUE: Is respondent administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law
during the period of her suspension and prior to an order of the Court lifting
such suspension.
VIOLATION/S FACTS:
This case is an consequence of an administrative complaint filed by Tomas P.
Tan Jr.(Complainant) against Atty. Haide V. Gumba (Respondent) when the
latter was not able to pay her loan amounting to 350,000 Pesos she secured
from the complainant. Incidental thereto, respondent executed in favor of the
complainant an undated Deed of Absolute Sale over a 105 square meter lot
located at Naga City. However, the TCT is under the name of the father of the
respondent. Attached to the said DOAS was a Special Power of Attorney
CPR CPRA executed by respondent’s parents authorizing her to apply a loan with a bank,
Sec. 45 not to sell it, to be secured to the subject property. Complainant and
respondent agreed that if the latter failed to pay the loan on or before it matures
at 1 year or by August 2000, complainant, may register the DOAS with the
NOTES: Register of Deeds.
CANON VI, Sec. 45 .Sworn
Statement after service of Respondent failed to pay her loan when it fell due. And despite of repeated
suspension. demands, she failed to settle her obligation. Consequently, complainant
attempted to register the DOAS but to no avail since the aforesaid SPA
attached only covered the authority of the respondent to mortgage it to a bank,
not to sell it.

Thus, Tan Jr., the complainant instituted this complaint arguing that if not for
the respondents misrepresentation using her skill as a lawyer and moral
ascendency over him, he would not have approved her loan.

Respondent failed to file her answer to the IBP Commissioner. Subsequently,

NOTES: The latter in his report recommended that Atty. Gumba be suspended for 1
year for violating the Lawyers Oath and the CPR to which the IBP-BOG
resolved to adopt and approve.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court in its resolution dated October 5,2011

sustained the findings and conclusion however, found the reduction of the
penalty proper pursuant to its sound judicial discretion and on the facts of the
case, lowering her suspension to six months.

On March 14, 2012, the court resolved to serve anew the October 5, 2011
Resolution upon respondent because its previous copy sent to her was
returned unserved. In its August 13,2012 Resolution,the Court considered its
October 5,2011 Resolution to have been served after the March 14,2012
Resolution was also returned unserved.In the same resolution,the Court also
denied with finality respondent’s motion for reconsideration on the October
5,2011 resolution.

Subsequently a judge in the MTCC of Naga, Judge Armea, after respondent

represented a party in a case pending in her court and the counsel of the
opposing party called her attention regarding the legal standing of the
respondent herein, inquired to the office of the court administrator through a
letter.
 Atty. Gumba commented on the query of Judge Armea and on the action of
Executive Judge Formaran III of the RTC of Naga City disallowing her
appearance in their courts.She insisted that the service of any pleading or
judgement cannot be made through the internet.

RULING:
Yes. Atty Gumba is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during the period of her
suspension and prior to the order of the Court lifting such suspension.

Regarding the suspension to the practice of law, in Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, the Court laid down the
guidelines for the lifting of an order of suspension. Included in this is the provision that upon the expiration of
the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with the Court through the office of the
Bar Confidant, stating that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not appeared in any court
during the period of his or her suspension.

In her argument, Atty Gumba asserted that she has never received the October 5,2011 Resolution
suspending her, however she filed her motion for reconsideration and on November 12,2012, she
successfully received the notice of the denial of such motion. Therefore, it follows that her suspension
commenced from November 12,2012 until May 12,2013.

Moreover, the OBC in its March 24,2015 Report stated that even after the period of her suspension,
notwithstanding her failure to file a sworn statement for its lifting, the respondent explicitly practiced law.

The Supreme Court, on February 19,2014, also directed the respondent to file a sworn statement on the
matter following the guidelines but instead of complying she filed a complaint against the OCA,the OBC and
certain Atty. Paraiso with the RTC. With this, the Court charged her a two-fold violation of the Court’s lawful
order.

Atty. Haide Gumba was then suspended from the practice of law for an additional six months from the
original six months suspension.