Disbarment and Discipline

of Attorneys
Rule 139-B, Rules of Court
 Power to Discipline Errant
Lawyers
• Rule 138, section 27.
– The Supreme Court has the full authority
and power to: (WARDS)
• Warn;
• Admonish;
• Reprimand;
• Suspend; and
• Disbar a lawyer.
 Power to Discipline Errant
Lawyers
• Rule 138, section 16.
– The Court of Appeals and the Regional
Trial Courts are also empowered to:
(WARS only)
• Warn;
• Admonish;
• Reprimand; and
• Suspend an attorney who appears before
them from the practice of law for any of the
causes mentioned in Rule 138, section 27.
 Forms of Disciplinary
Measures
1. WARNING – an act or fact of putting one on his
guard against an impending danger, evil
consequences or penalties.
2. ADMONITION – a gentle or friendly reproof, mild
rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a
fault, error or oversight; an expression of
authoritative advice.
3. REPRIMAND – a public or formal censure or severe
reproof, administered to a person in fault by his
superior officer or a body to which he belongs.
• CENSURE – official reprimand
 Forms of Disciplinary
Measures
4. SUSPENSION – a temporary
withholding of a lawyer’s right to practice
his profession as a lawyer for a certain
period or for an indefinite period of time
5. DISBARMENT – it is the act of the
Philippine Supreme Court in withdrawing
from an attorney the right to practice
law. The name of the lawyer is stricken
out from the roll of attorneys.
Suspension and Disbarment
• Nature of Proceedings:
– Sui generis – It is a class of its own since it is neither
civil nor criminal.
– Confidential in nature.
– Defense of double jeopardy is not available.
– Can be initiated by the SC, motu proprio, or by the IBP.
It can be initiated without a complaint. There is neither
a plaintiff nor a prosecutor.
– Can proceed regardless of interest of the complainants
– Imprescriptible
– It is itself due process of law. Not a trial of an action or
a suit, but rather an investigation by the Court in the
conduct of its officers
Suspension and Disbarment
• Public interest is the primary objective. Not
intended to inflict punishment, it is no
sense a criminal prosecution.
• Main issue: whether or not the attorney is
still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such.
 Objectives of Suspension or
Disbarment
• To compel the attorney to deal fairly and
honestly with his clients
• To remove from the profession a person whose
misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to
the office of an attorney
• To set an example or warning for the other
members of the bar
• To safeguard the administration of justice from
dishonest and incompetent lawyers
• To protect the public
 Grounds for Disbarment
(Rule 138, section 27)
• Deceit
• Malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office –
any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed
by a lawyer
• Grossly immoral conduct
• Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
• Violation of oath of office
• Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court
• Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for
a party to a case without an authority to do so
 Officers authorized to Investigate
Disbarment Cases
• Supreme Court
• IBP through its Commission on Bar
Discipline or authorized investigators
• Office of the Solicitor General
 Important Concepts
• The statutory enumeration of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general
power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent
power of the court over its officers cannot be restricted.
(Quingwa v. Puno, February 28, 1967)
• Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment
less severe such as reprimand, suspension or fine would
accomplish the end desired. (Amaya v. Tecson, 450 SCRA
510)
• In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the
complainant. The Court will exercise its disciplinary power
only if the complainant established his case by clear,
convincing and satisfactory evidence. (Aquino v. Mangaoang,
425 SCRA 572)
 Procedure when compliant is
initiated in the IBP
• Filing of VERIFIED complaint to the IBP or IBP motu
proprio
o Complaint must be in writing, stating facts complained of.
• Commission on Bar Discipline shall appoint an
investigator and notify respondent lawyer within
two days from receipt thereof
• Respondent is required to answer within 15 days
from notice
• Investigation (3 months)
– Investigator may issue subpoenas
– Provide the respondent with opportunity to be heard
– May proceed with investigation ex parte should
respondent be unable to comply
 Procedure when compliant is
initiated in the IBP
• CBD submits not later than 30 days from
termination of investigation a REPORT,
which contains:
• Findings of facts
• Recommendation: WARDS
• Supreme Court for Judgment
 Procedure when compliant is
initiated by the Supreme Court
• Supreme Court shall refer the case to an
investigator and shall notify the respondent
• Possible Investigators: Solicitor General, any
officer of the SC, any judge of a lower court
• Respondent must answer within 15 days
from notice
• Investigation (3 months)
• Report to be submitted by the investigator
not later than 30 days from termination of
investigation.
• Supreme Court for judgment
 Imposition of Penalties
• Suspension
– By Division if one year or less
– En Banc if more than one year
• Fine
– By Division if Php10,000.00 or less
– En Banc if more than Php10,000.00
• In case of two or more suspensions,
service will be successive, not
simultaneous
 REINSTATEMENT
• It is the restoration in disbarment
proceedings to a disbarred or
indefinitely suspended lawyer the
privilege to practice law.
• Statutory basis: 1987 Constitution,
Article VIII, section 5(5). The power of
the Supreme Court to reinstate is
based on its constitutional
prerogative to promulgate rules on
the admission of applicants to the
 REINSTATEMENT
• Thus, the judgment of disbarment does
not become final notwithstanding the
lapse of several years from its
promulgation, as it may be reopened or
reconsidered by the SC upon proper
petition (or motion) and satisfactory
evidence.
• Quantum of evidence: clear, convincing
and satisfactory evidence – same proof
required for admission
 REINSTATEMENT
• The Court may impose certain conditions on a
lawyer’s re-admission.
• updating and payment of IBP dues;
• payment of professional tax;
• completion of at least 36 credit hours of
MCLE
• retaking of the lawyer’s oath
• requiring the lawyer to recognize and
support his child (In re: Puno, 43 SCRA
54) – superseded by Zaguirre v. Castillo
 Matters taken into consideration in
reinstatement cases
• The applicant’s character and
standing prior to disbarment;
• The nature or character of the
misconduct for which he is disbarred;
• His conduct subsequent to
disbarment (Cui v. Cui, 11 SCRA 755);
• His efficient government service (In
re: Adriatico, 17 Phil 324);
 Matters taken into consideration in
reinstatement cases
• Time that has elapsed between disbarment and
the application for reinstatement and the
circumstances that he has been sufficiently
punished and disciplined (Prudential Bank v.
Grecia, 192 SCRA 381);
• Applicant’s appreciation of significance of his
dereliction and his assurance that he now
possess the requisite probity and integrity;
• Favorable endorsement of the IBP, pleas of his
loved ones (Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 170 SCRA
207).
Condition for Reinstatement
A lawyer who has been suspended or
disbarred may be reinstated when the SC is
convinced that he has already possessed the
requisites of probity and integrity necessary to
guarantee his worth to practice his profession.
To be reinstated to the practice of law, the
applicant must satisfy the court that he is a
person of good moral character and a fit and
proper person to practice law. (In re: Rovero,
101 SCRA 803)
 What is the effect of a grant of
absolute pardon by the President?

A previously disbarred lawyer who is

given absolute pardon by the President
is not automatically reinstated, he
must still file a petition for
reinstatement with the SC.
 Effects of Reinstatement
• Recognition of moral rehabilitation
and mental fitness to practice law;
• Lawyer shall be subject to same law,
rules, and regulations as those
applicable to any other lawyer (e.g.
payment of legal fees);
• Lawyer must comply with the
conditions imposed on his
readmission.
 CASES
• Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA
– 30 October 1992 – Atty. Dacanay was
disbarred
– 23 February 1994 – Atty. Dacanay filed a
Motion to Lift (Disbarment) – DENIED
• GROUNDS:
– He was already 62 years old, has learned his lesson from
his mistake, was terribly sorry for what he had done, and in
all candor promised that if given another chance he would
live up to the exacting demands of the legal profession.
– He appended to his motion certifications of good moral
character from religious persons (priests, nun), a law
school dean, several judges of Quezon City.
 CASES
• Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA
– 1 December 1994 – Atty. Dacanay filed an Ex-Parte
Motion to Lift Disbarment - NOTED
• GROUNDS:
– He had been deprived of his means to life; he had pursued civic,
religious and community work, especially for the poor and the
underprivileged short of extending legal assistance because of
his incapacity. His wife wrote the Court, asking the Court to take
a second look into its decision disbarring her husband as her
entire family had been traumatized by his disbarment.
– 4 August 1995 – again prayed for his
reinstatement – NOTED
– 17 November, 1995 – again wrote the Court
 CASES
• Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA
– December 12, 1995 – Three (3) years has, quite
apparently, given him sufficient time and
occasion to soul-search and reflect on his
professional conduct, redeem himself and prove
once more that he is worthy to practice law and
be capable of upholding the dignity of the legal
profession. His admission of guilt and repeated
pleas for compassion and reinstatement show
that he is ready once more to meet the exacting
standards the legal profession demands from its
practitioners.
 CASES
• Zaguirre v. Castillo
– March 6, 2003 – Atty. Castillo was
indefinitely suspended
– April 11, 2003 – Atty. Castillo filed a motion
for reconsideration
• GROUNDS: He submitted certificates from
government and civic organizations
appreciating his services as a lawyer,
certificates of attendance from religious groups,
and certificates of good moral character from
judges and lawyers in Occidental Mindoro.
 CASES
• Zaguirre v. Castillo
– IBP Occidental Mindoro Chapter issued recommended the
exoneration of respondent from administrative liability.
– IBP, through Director for Bar Discipline, commented that
the motion for reconsideration should be denied until
respondent admits the paternity of the child and agrees to
support her.
– Complainant’s counsel said that respondent has not taken
any move to support complainant and her child.
– Atty. Castillo’s wife sent another handwritten letter, arguing
that complainant should have filed a case for support
where the paternity of the child could be determined and
not use the present administrative case to get support from
her husband.
 CASES
• Zaguirre v. Castillo
– In view of respondent’s show of
repentance and active service to the
community, the Court deems it just and
reasonable to convert the penalty of
indefinite suspension to a definite period
of two years suspension.
– Complainant’s further claim for support
of her child should be addressed to the
proper court in a proper case.
 CASES
• In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay
– March 1960 – admitted to the Bar
– December 1998 – migrated to Canada
– May 2004 – became Canadian citizen
– July 14, 2006 – reacquired Philippine
citizenship pursuant to RA 9225
ISSUE: whether petitioner lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he
gave up his Philippine citizenship in May
2004
 CASES
• In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay
– OBC’s recommendation: Petitioner be allowed to
resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to
remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a
member of the Philippine bar.
– General Rule: Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice
of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship
ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines.
 CASES
• In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay
– Exception: when Filipino citizenship is lost
by reason of naturalization as a citizen of
another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.
– Although he is also deemed never to
have terminated his membership in the
Philippine bar, no automatic right to
resume law practice accrues. (section 5
(4) of RA 9225)
 CASES
• In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay
– SC’s modification: Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to
RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
• the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in
the IBP;
• the payment of professional tax;
• the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing
legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of
legal developments and
• the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court,
but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines.
– Effect: Compliance with the foregoing conditions will restore his good standing as
a member of the Philippine bar.