Disciplinary Proceedings

 Sec 5 (5), Art. VIII: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:….(5) “Promulgate rules
concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged….”

 Penalty imposed may be:

 Disbarment
 Suspension
 Reprimand
 Fine and Others

• YAP-PARAS vs. PARAS (Objectives of Disbarment)

• In a number of cases, we have repeatedly explained and stressed that the purpose of disbarment is not
meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the
courts and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the
esteemed and noble profession. Likewise, the purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to
safeguard the functions of the court to assure respect for court orders by attorneys who, as much as
judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.

Nature of Disbarment Proceedings

• Sui Generis

• Prescriptive Period

• Effect of Desistance

• CALUB vs. SULLER

• The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of
this administrative case.

• BENGCO vs. BERNARDO

• The Supreme Court found untenable Respondent’s defense of prescription – that the complaint was
filed two years after the supposed deceit was committed. Administrative cases against lawyers do not
prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of
the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.
• TIONG vs. FLORENDO

• A case for suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a
complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its
undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. It is not an investigation into the
respondent’s acts as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a
member of the Bar. Hence, the affidavit, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of
abating the proceedings.

• ANACTA vs. RESURRECCION

• Finding Respondent guilty of deceit and gross misconduct, the Supreme Court suspended him from law
practice reasoning that, there is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of
deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of
disbarment where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.

• YU vs. PALAÑA

• Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they
may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial
question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.

• Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.
They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the
official ministration of persons unfit to practice law

 Grounds for suspension or disbarment:

 Deceit;
 Malpractice or other gross misconduct in office;
 Grossly immoral conduct;
 Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
 Violation of oath of office;
 Willful disobedience of any lawful order of any superior court; or
 Corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.

• PHILUX, INC. vs. NLRC

• The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of
procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless
and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court, in which case the remedy then is to reopen
the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce his evidence.

• ADVINCULA vs. MACABATA

• The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of
misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors. When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the
Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to
foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other
lawyers from similar misconduct.

• BARRIOS vs. MARTINEZ

• Disbarment is deemed to be the appropriate penalty in this case. Of all classes and professions, the
lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws.

• WILKIE vs. LIMOS

• 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

• SORIANO vs. DIZON

• “x x x.  Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.  Moral
turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of
statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and
frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)

• GONZAGA vs. VILLANUEVA, JR.

• A lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions
precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership
therein.

• However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and must be used only in a
clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of
the court and member of the Bar. 

• VARGAS vs. IGNES

• Disbarment, however, is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to
disbar must always be exercised with great caution, and should be imposed only for the most imperative
reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any
punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension or fine, would accomplish the end desired.

• Investigation is Conducted by:

– The Supreme Court

– The IBP (through the Commission on Bar Discipline)

– Any authorized body (e.g. SolGen)

• Judicial in Nature

• Private and confidential in nature except that the final order shall be made public.

• Presumption of innocence still applies but an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to disciplinary
proceedings.

• Defendant should be given ample time to prepare.

• Clearly Preponderant Evidence is required.

• Burden of Proof rests upon the complainant.

• Must be grounded on violation of their oath or the canons of the profession and not merely for
losing a case.

• Disbarment is not necessarily a permanent disability since the lawyer may be reinstated on proper
application or on petition for that purpose addressed to the Court, usually by a motion showing that he
has reformed himself.

• Filing of complaint and investigation

– Authorized officers to investigate

• Supreme Court, IBP through the Commission on Bar Discipline (investigating arm of the IBP) or
authorized investigators and the SolGen
• The Court of Appeals and the RTC- against lawyers who appear for litigants in cases pending before
them.
– Only suspension, not disbarment.

– IBP - Moto Proprio or upon verified complaint of any person or upon referral by the SC or by an IBP
Chapter Board of Officers
• Who can file?

– Any person aggrieved by the misconduct of a lawyer or any person even if not aggrieved but knows of
the lawyer’s misconduct, unlawful or unethical act.

– Involves no private interest. It is akin to a public crime which can be initiated by anybody.

• Where to file:

– Supreme Court

– IBP National Office or

– Any of the IBP Chapter Offices in the country

• Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint

• How?

– Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of
any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an
investigator.

• Prohibited Pleadings

• Venue

• Proceedings

– Mandatory Conference-Submission of Position Papers-Determination of Necessity of Clarificatory

Questioning-Issuance of Order Submitting the Case for Decision-Submission of Report and Recommendation
to the Board of Governors

• En Banc or by Division?

• Successive or simulaneous?

• Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitor Principle

• Valid Defenses

• Statue of Limitation/Prescription

• Acquittal of a Crime
• Pari Delicto

• Good Faith

• Prejudicial Question

• Executive Pardon

• Desistance/Withdrawal of Complaint
Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing Abroad

• If it is also a ground for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in
this country.
Reinstatement

• Means the readmission to membership in the Bar and the restoration to a disbarred lawyer the
privilege to practice law.

• Power to reinstate: Supreme Court

• Objective:

– To determine whether the applicant has satisfied and convinced the court by positive evidence that:

• There is successful rehabilitation of character which would entitle readmission to the profession.

• “positive evidence”

– Written testimonials from credible institutions and personalities showing of proof of honesty, integrity
and good moral character.

• Criteria:

– Applicant’s character and standing prior to disbarment;

– Nature and character of misconduct for which he was disbarred;

– Conduct subsequent to disbarment;

– His efficient government service;

– Time elapsed and circumstances that he has been sufficiently punished;

– Applicant’s appreciation of the significance of his misconduct and assurance that he now
possesses the required probity and integrity; and

– Favorable endorsement of the IBP and pleas of his loved ones.

• Effects:

– Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law.

– Shall be subject to same rules and regulations as any other lawyer.

– Comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission.

• Lawyers who have been suspended, disbarred, or repatriated

• IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM LAW PRACTICE IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G.
MAQUERA

• Disbarment/suspension of a Philippine Bar member by a competent court or other disciplinary agency

in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for disbarment or
suspension if the basis of such action constitutes a ground for disbarment/suspension from law
practice in the Philippines.

• The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment/suspension.

• DUMADAG vs. LUMAYA

• Indefiniteness of Respondent’s suspension, far from being cruel or degrading or inhuman has the effect
of placing, as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands – that
sanction has the effect of giving Respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his
contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and
demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct rightly
demanded from every Bar member and officer of the courts.

• MANIAGO vs. DE DIOS

• Guidelines be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the practice of
law:
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render a
decision imposing the penalty; 
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt thereof,
respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of said
motion shall render the decision final and executory;
3) 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 therein 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;
4)  Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive
Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she
 has appeared as counsel; 
5)  The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents compliance with the order of
suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the
imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted.

• REYES vs. VITAN

• Supreme Court granted Respondent’s application for reinstatement effective upon his submission to
the Court of a sworn statement that: (a) he has completely served the four suspension orders imposed
on him successively; (b) he desisted from the law practice during the period of suspension; (c) he has
returned the sums of money to the complainants as ordered by the court in the previous
administrative cases; (d) he has furnished copies of his sworn statement to the IBP and the Executive
Judge.

• RICHARDS vs. ASOY

• The numerous letters reporting Respondent’s non-compliance, glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of
his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood
of lawyers.

• By taking his sweet time to effect reimbursement of the P16,000.00 – and through consignation with
this Court at that - he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could
be treated with disdain or impunity.