I.

Disbarment Proceedings

a. Disbarment – it is the most severe penalty the Supreme Court may impose to erring lawyers.

The effect of a lawyer’s disbarment is the taking of his or her professional license, the

prohibition from the practice of law, and his or her name is struck off the Roll of Attorneys.

Disbarment is not meant to be a form of punishment to deprive an attorney of his or her

means of livelihood but instead, it intended to protect the courts and the public from the

misconduct of the officers of the court and to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Furthermore, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution.

b. The Power to disbar – The Supreme Court has the inherent and absolute power to disbar an

erring lawyer based on the Constitution. The Legislative may provide statutes or rules on

disbarment however, it does not enlarge or restrict the power of the Court to disbar or

suspend erring lawyers it merely regulates the Court’s power to disbar.

c. Disbarment Proceedings - A process which involves careful and thorough study of the facts

and circumstances to arrive at a conclusion on whether the erring lawyer be removed from

the Roll and barred from the practice of law. Disbarment proceedings are sui generis, meaning

that it is a class of its own; it is neither a criminal proceeding nor a civil proceeding but an

administrative proceeding. The rules on disbarment proceedings are governed by the Rules

of Court, specifically by Rule 139-A and Rule 139-B, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645.

d. Suspension – It is a penalty imposed by the Supreme Court to erring lawyers which suspends

an erring lawyer from the practice of law for a specified period of time. Lifting of the

suspension after the lapse of the specified period is not automatic. The suspended lawyer

must file a Motion to Lift Suspension before the Supreme Court. He or she must also file a

Sworn statement as proof of the compliance with the order of suspension.

e. The Integrated Bar of the Philippine’s Committee on Professional Responsibility, Discipline,

and Disbarment – It formulates the Canons of Professional Responsibility and submit

recommendations on methods for its effective enforcement and has the authority to express

advisory opinions, upon written request of any member, on any matter affecting his own

professional conduct. It can also make recommendations to the Board of Governors for

reforms and improvements in the grievance procedures.

f. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) - Handles disciplinary proceedings in the IBP. It issues

resolutions as recommended by the Commissioner assigned and the Board of Governors,

however, such resolutions are merely recommendatory for the Supreme Court has the

absolute power to disbar a lawyer.

g. Rules of Court, Rule 139-A, Sec. 12: Grievance procedures. The Board of Governors shall

provide in the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the enforcement and maintenance of

discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the

suspension or disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys

shall be effective without the final approval of the Supreme Court.

h. Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 27: Grounds for disbarment.

1. Deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in his office

2. Grossly immoral conduct

3. His conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

4. Any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to the

practice

5. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court

6. For corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without

authority to do so
 7. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or

through paid agents or brokers

II. Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, as amended.

a. Who may file a complaint – Any interested party, private complainant or the Supreme Court

may file a verified complaint against a lawyer who have transgressed the lawyer’s oath or the

Code of Professional Responsibility

b. Where to file a complaint – Complaints may be filed before the Supreme Court, Office of the

Bar Confidant, or with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

c. The IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for

disbarment, suspension and discipline filed against:

1. Justices of the Court of Appeals

2. Justices of Sandiganbayan

3. Justices of Court of Tax Appeals

4. Judges of the lower courts

5. Lawyers in the government service

III. Rule 139-B: Proceedings in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

a. National Grievance Investigator - Investigates all complaints against members of the IBP

referred to them by the Board of Governors.

b. Service or dismissal - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct

that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within

fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the

answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the

same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation.

 No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement,

compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to

prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the

IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the

disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.

c. Investigation - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the

Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall

have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full

opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself

and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the

investigation shall proceed ex parte. The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within

three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the

Board of Governors upon prior application.

d. Report of Investigator — Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the

investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report containing his findings of fact and

recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors.

e. Review and decision by the Board of Governors - Every case heard by an investigator shall

be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it

by the Investigator with his report. If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total

membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law

or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which,

together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme

Court for final action. If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction

imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine)

 it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be

deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed

with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the

Supreme Court orders otherwise.

IV. Proceedings in the Supreme Court

a. Supreme Court Investigation. — In proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court or in other

proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case

for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a

lower court. The complaint may also be referred to the IBP for investigation, report and

recommendation

b. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-designated Investigator. — Based upon the

evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated

by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of

fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.

V. Common Provisions

a. The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any

of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the

case. Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith

transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement

of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and

statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke,

shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant

b. Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of

the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.
VI. In Re: MARCIAL A. EDILLON

Facts: Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. For his stubborn

refusal to pay his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since the latter's

constitution, notwithstanding due notice, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines unanimously adopted and submitted to the Supreme Court a resolution recommending

the removal of respondent's name from its Roll of Attorneys. The respondent contended that his

obligation to pay membership dues is a violation to his right to association, liberty, and property. He

also contended that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to strike his name from the Roll of

Attorneys, contending that this matter is not among the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is of

an administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body.

Issue: The issue is whether or not the respondent be disbarred due to refusal to pay his membership

dues.

Held: The court held that here is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Supreme Court, under

its constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law

and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) from requiring

members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the

expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is

indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and

purposes of integration.

With regard to respondent’s contention that the imposition of the fees would amount to a deprivation

of property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights, the court held
that if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognized, then a penalty designed to

enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as

unreasonable or arbitrary. The practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such

must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer s public

responsibilities.