Basic Legal Ethics

2nd Sem, AY2019-2020

Atty. Carlo Angelito M. Ilano

Home exercise No. 2

1. Juan Pedro was disbarred from the practice of law in 2008 for gross immoral conduct because he
had illicit relations. Ten (10) years later, at age sixty-five (65), he asked the Supreme Court for
judicial clemency and filed a petition for his reinstatement to the Rollo of Attorneys. Juan Pedro
asked for forgivenes from his family, especially his complainant wife. He also presented a
certification from their parish priest and two (2) barangay officials attesting to his good moral
character? May Juan Pedro be reinstated as a member of the Bar? (2019 Bar)

Answer:

Yes, Juan Pedro may be reinstated as a member of the Bar.

The Court held in Que vs Revilla that when exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement,
the Court should see to it that only those who establish their present moral fitness and knowledge
of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. Nonetheless, the Court denied reinstatement in that case
because although Revilla has also presented certificates from various communities and churches
attesting to his reformed good moral conduct and has asked for forgiveness; the Court deemed
that a period of 4 years is not sufficient to reflect and to realize his professional transgressions.

In this case, a period of 10 years has already passed after Juan Pedro has committed conduct
deserving of disbarment. He has devoted his time to use his knowledge and skills to help his
community and churches prosper. However, the amount of time that has passed is not the only
thing to be taken into consideration by the Court to reinstate a former member. Juan Pedro still
has to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is worthy for reinstatement.
Nonetheless, I would still say that Juan Pedro may be reinstated back again as a member of the
Bar.

2. Atty. Juan Pedro was disbarred in the State of New York for charging his client with exorbitant
fees and mishandling the latter’s money. Atty. Andres Antonio, a rival of Atty. Juan Pedro since
their law school days, filed a complaint for disbarment against the latter before the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines on the ground of Atty. Juan Pedro’s disbarment in the State of New York,
attaching copies of the disbarment proceedings and the final decision therein. Is there basis to
disbar Atty. Juan Pedro?

Answer:

Yes, there is basis to disbar Atty. Juan Pedro.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that the disbarment or suspension of
a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or
suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated. Also, the
judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. What that means is if the ground for
 suspension in a foreign country is also a ground for suspension or disbarment here in the
Philippines, then there is ground to disbar Atty. Juan Pedro.

The Supreme Court also held in the case of In re: Maquera that a foreign court’s judgment
ordering a lawyer’s suspension from the practice of law in a foreign country does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines. Nonetheless as mentioned
above, there is still ground or basis to disbar Atty. Juan Pedro.

3. What constitutes due process of a lawyer facing disbarment proceedings?

Answer:

The essence of procedural due process is to be given the opportunity to be heard and to explain
his/her side. For a lawyer facing disbarment proceedings, Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Revised
Rules of Court provide that the respondent (lawyer) shall be given full opportunity to be defend
himself, present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. In Re: Maquera
provides that due process demands that he be given the opportunity to defend himself and to
present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an investigation to be conducted
in accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court of course still extends
or accords the full extent of due process to a lawyer facing disbarment charges.

4. Reginald Reynoso, a wealthy businessman, had a falling out with Atty. Juan Pedro after the
former discovered that the latter was deliberately delaying action in Reynoso’s pending civil suit
against a debtor in order to charge multiple court appearance fees. Reynoso filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Juan Pedro before the Supreme Court, which referred the
matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).

In the meantime, Atty. Juan Pedro successfully terminated a pending estafa case against Reynoso,
which dismissal save the latter millions of pesos. This brought great joy to Reynoso that he filed
an affidavit of desistance before the OBC saying he is already withdrawing the complaint against
Atty. Juan Pedro.

a. If you are the OBC officer handling the complaint, what action will you take on the
affidavit?

Answer:

I would disregard the affidavit of desistance and deem it as no force and effect.

It has been expressly stated in Section 5(2), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court that 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.

What the section means is that the rules expressly disallow agreements or compromises
between the complainant-client and respondent-lawyer. So, since the affidavit of
desistance is expressly prohibited with certain exceptions, I would not treat it as effective
and would still pursue with the investigation as the OBC officer.
b. Enumerate two (2) ways of terminating a complaint for disbarment.

Answer:

1. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of
the investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, then the Investigator will
recommend to the Board of Governors for its dismissal. The board will review, and
then recommend its dismissal to the Supreme Court. (Section 5,12 Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court)

2. The Supreme Court motu propio determines that there is no compelling reason to
continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent
(Section 5, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court)