You are on page 1of 5

Grounds for Disbarment or

Suspension of a Lawyer


Cham vs. Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro

A.C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005
A lawyer was subjected to disciplinary action for selling a non-disposable land of the public
domain. He violated his oath not to do falsehood and misrepresentation to the buyercomplainant.
Co vs. Bernardino, 285 SCRA 102 [1998]
Lao vs. Medel, 405 SCRA 227 [2003]
For a lawyer to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, the transaction entered into need not be in
the performance of professional services. It can be in his private capacity.
Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and
dishonor in other relations.
Case references:
Santos vs. Atty. Maria Vivane
Cacho-Calicdan, September 19, 2006



Nakpil vs. Atty. Carlos J. Valdes

March 4, 1998
A lawyer violated the trust and confidence of the client when he represented conflicting interest.
He represented the creditors when his accounting firm prepared and computed the claims of the
creditors while his law firm represented the estate.

Case references:
Buted vs. Hernando, 203 SCRA 1
Maturan vs. Gonzales, March 12, 1998
Conflict of interest
(Pormento vs. Pontevedra, March 31, 2005)

A lawyer has to disclose to his client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties in
connection with the controversy which might influence the client in the selection of counsel.
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests except by express consent of all concerned
given after full disclosure of the facts.

Tests to determine if there is conflicting interests:

If the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired thru
their connection;
Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from full discharge
of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double dealing in the performance thereof.

Reason for prohibition

The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust
and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected
with his clients case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong
ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be
given him to take advantage of his clients secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of
his client. For, if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
The prohibition applies however slight such adverse interest may be (Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286
SCRA 758).
The essence of the rule is to maintain inviolate the clients confidence or to refrain from

obtaining anything which will injuriously affect in any matter in which he previously represented


Grossly immoral conduct

Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes

A.C. No. 6488, September 22, 2004
The wife complained that her husband was a philanderer, having illicit relationship with two
women. He was disbarred. A lawyer must demonstrate that he or she has good moral character
and should behave in accordance with the standards.
Case references:
Barrientos vs. Daarol, 218 SCRA 30
Toledo vs. Toledo, 7 SCRA 757
Obusan vs. Obusan, 128 SCRA 485
Terre vs. Terre, July 3, 1992
Santos vs. Tan, 196 SCRA 16
St. Louis Univ. Laboratory High School Faculty & Staff vs. Atty. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010,
August 28, 2006
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired;
hence, the penalty of two years suspension was more appropriate.
A lawyer got married again after his failed marriage. He never absconded his obligations to his
first wife and child. After the annulment of his second marriage, he remained celibate. He was
humble enough to offer no defense save for his lone and declaration of his commitment to his
wife and child. (Conjuangco vs. Palma, 438 SCRA 306; 462 SCRA 310 [2005]).
Zaguirre vs. Castillo
398 SCRA 658 [2003]
465 SCRA [2005]

Conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude

In the Matter of Disbarment Proceedings vs. Narciso Jaranillo, 101 Phil. 323

A lawyer was disbarred for having been convicted of estafa.


In Re: Dalmacio delos Angeles, 106 Phil. 1

A lawyer was convicted of the crime of bribery. He was disbarred.

Case references:
In Re: Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo, 203 Phil. 79
In Re: Atty. Isidro Vinzons, 126 Phil. 96
Barrios vs. Atty. Francisco Martinez, A.C. No. 4885, November 12, 2004


Violation of the Lawyers Oath

Judge Ubaldino Larucon vs. Atty. Ellis Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006

In his motion, the lawyer stated:

The judgment is an abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible
error, an insult to the judiciary, and an anachronism in the judicial process.
The lawyer was suspended. The language exceeded the vigor required of a lawyer to defend ably
his clients cause.

Almendrez vs. Atty. Minervo Langit, A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006

A lawyer was suspended for having appropriated the rental deposits for his client in an ejectment
Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G.
Maquera, 435 SCRA 417
A lawyer who was suspended from the practice of law abroad may likewise be sanctioned in the
Philippines for infraction he committed abroad. (Velez vs. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697, July 25,

Willful disobedience to any
lawful order of a superior court

People vs. Dalusog, 62 SCRA 540;

Luzon Mahogany Timber Ind., Inc. vs. Castro, 69 SCRA 384;

People vs, Medina, 62 SCRA 253;
Geeslin vs. Navarro, 185 SCRA 230

Willfully appearing as attorney
for any party without authority
(Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court; Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, A.C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005)

Porac Trucking Corp. vs. CA, 202 SCRA 674; Garrido vs. Quisumbing, 28

SCRA 614
A lawyer was suspended from the practice of law in appearing for a party defendant without
A judge may require a lawyer to prove that he is authorized to appear for a client.

Mercado vs. Ulay, 187 SCRA 720