WEEK 2 OF 2

I. ALEXA
II. ANJELO

a. How does one "verify" a bar complaint?

ANSWER: In a bar complaint, it is verified by furnishing an affidavit or document
duly notarized, attesting the facts to which he or she had personal knowledge of and is
supported by affidavits of his or her witness and/or other documents.
b. What is the form of the resolution in a bar complaint investigated by the IBP?
ANSWER: The form of the resolution in a bar complaint investigated by the IBP
depends upon the circumstances. By default, the Final Report and Recommendation as
the resolution is forwarded to the Supreme Court for their final decision. Meaning, thus
decision is only RECOMMENDATORY. However, if the resolution is less than suspension
such as admonition, reprimand, or censure or fine, the decision of the Board of
Governors (of IBP) shall become final and executory if no party appeals the same to the
Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from the notice.
c. What is the compliance period for MCLE purposes?
ANSWER: Subject to the exemptions listed in Sections 1 and 2, Rule 7 of the Rules,
every member of the IBP must complete at least thirty-six (36) credit units of
mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) every three (3) years during the
compliance period. he initial compliance period shall be from April 15, 2001 up to April
14, 2004. All succeeding compliance periods shall begin the day after the end of the
preceding compliance period. The initial compliance period for members newly
admitted or readmitted to the IBP shall begin on the first day of the month of admission
or readmission and shall end on the same day as that of all other members.

III. ARIEL

A. In general, is an anonymous complaint conformable to the requirement in the

institution of a bar complaint?
ANS: No. It must be noted that under section 1 of Rule 139-B the manner of institution
of a bar complaint requires that it must be verified and that it shall be supported by
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and or by
such documents as may substantiate said facts. An anonymous complaint certainly is
not verified originating as it does from an unknown author who is petrified to disclose
their real identities. Hence, an anonymous complaint, in general, does not conform to
the requirement in the institution of a bar complaint.
B. Case Digest of Gatmaytan vs. Ilao, A.C. No. 6086 January 26, 2005

FACTS This is appeal of the Resolution passed by the Board of Governors of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines which adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation of
Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan dated 04 April 2003, dismissing the
complaint4 for disbarment filed by Atty. Nicanor B. Gatmaytan, Jr., against Atty. Isidro C.
Ilao. Atty. Nicanor is the counsel for plaintiff Teresita Payuran in case for cancellation of title
before RTC Pasay and Atty. Ilao is the counsel for respondents. Atty. Nicanor received an
adverse decision in the case and moved for reconsideration which was denied, he also filed
second motion for reconsideration but likewise denied. He filed a notice of appeal but
likewise denied. Thereupon, he filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the
Court of Appeals. On February 2002, during the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari, Atty.
Ilao filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Nicanor Gatmaytan and also filed in his
personal capacity and as attorney-in-fact of his co-plaintiffs, filed a complaint for damages
against herein complainant, Teofista Payuran and Atty. Augusto Gatmaytan. On August
2002, Atty Nicanor filed his own disbarment complaint against Atty. Ilao claiming that by
filing the complaint for damages, Atty Ilao is guilty of making false representations and
advice to his clients, as well as committing falsehood, misleading the court and misusing the
Rules of Procedure. After submission of necessary pleading in this disbarment case against
Atty. Ilao, Investigating Commissioner Milagros San Juan recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit and this was adopted by the IBP Board of governors in an issued
resolution. The complainant moved for reconsideration however it was denied by the IBP
such that it it no longer exercises jurisdiction over it upon its endorsement to the Supreme
Court. The Court however, treated the motion as an appeal. In his appeal, he asserts that
instead of dismissing the complaint outright for lack of merit, the investigating
commissioner should have conducted an investigation of the charge. ISSUE May a
disbarment complaint be dismissed without conducting an investigation? RULING Yes.
Section 5 and 8 of Rule 139-B provides for the modes of initiatory action that the
investigating commissioner is empowered to take upon a complaint, either dismiss it or
proceed with the investigation. Section 5 of the rule provides that if the complaint does not
merit an action of 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. Verily, it is within the sound discretion of the Investigator to
determine whether or not the complaint is meritorious and if an investigation must indeed
ensue. Here, Commissioner San Juan did not see the need to conduct an investigation
because the instances when an investigation shall push through did not arise. Respondent
Atty. Ilao did submit his answer to the complaint and after the exchange of pleadings
between the parties, the Commissioner made the determination that the complaint does
not merit action and must therefore be dismissed. It is only when the complaint bears
merit, or when the answer fails to show that the complaint indeed lacks merit, or when
respondent fails to file an answer that an investigation shall proceed. Otherwise, if the
complaint is bereft of merit, either on its face or as proven by respondent’s answer, it will
be unjust to mandate the Investigator to conduct an investigation. Hence, a complaint for
disbarment can be dismissed even without the conduct of investigation. The Supreme Court
in this case upheld the Resolution of the IBP dismissing the complaint for failure to establish
that Atty. Ilao made false representations and advice to his clients, committed falsehood,
misled the court, and misused the Rules of Procedure in violation of the Canons of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and denied the appeal.
C. Is the Clerk of Court exempted from MCLE program?

ANS: Yes, Clerk of Court is exempted from MCLE Program. The amendment to BAR
MATTER 850 provides that among others, incumbent court lawyers who have availed of
the Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing judicial education are exempt
from MCLE. However, they are not automatically exempted, there must be a showing
that they are covered or have availed of the program of the Philippine Judicial Academy
on continuing judicial education and that they have attended said seminar or an
attestation of exemption to that effect.

IV. BANNY
Question No.1
When is an anonymous complaint to be given due course?
Answer:
An anonymous complaint shall be entertained or to be given due course
when the act complained of is of public knowledge or the allegations can be verified
or supported by documentary or direct evidence as per Section 12, Rule 3 of 2017
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS). Furthermore, in
Anonymous v. Geverola, the Solicitor General et al. cites that, “An anonymous
complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an
unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its
outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easy
of verification and may without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by
other competent evidence.
Question No. 2
Submit case digest of Bildner vs. Lokin, A.C. 6554, Dec.14, 2005
Case Digest:
FACTS:
Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Luis Lokin, Jr..
This sprung from the time that her father, the late Potenciano Ilusorio, engaged the
services of the law office of Lokin to represent him in the Sandiganbayan where the
Republic was claiming, among other properties, shareholdings in Philippine
Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) and Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT).
Ilusorio, with the assistance of Lokin, entered into a Compromise Agreement where
Ilusorio was to get 673 POTC shares. Ilusorio-Bildner alleges that the informal
gathering, through the “high-handed and deceitful maneuvers” of Lokin, was
suddenly and without notice transformed into a Special Stockholders Meeting at
which directors and officers of PHILCOMSAT were elected. Her father contested the
validity of the meeting by filing before the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) against Manuel Nieto, et al. who were purportedly elected directors and
officers of PHILCOMSAT, in which SEC case Lokin appeared as the counsel of Nieto,
et al., contrary to his oath not to represent conflicting interests.
Ilusorio, had earlier filed with the IBP a disbarment complaint. However, on account
of the death of Ilusorio, his complaint was dismissed without prejudice to the filing
of a new complaint by Ilusorio’s children. Ilusorio-Bildner now filed the complaint
but the IBP Board of Governors dismissed it. No copy of the notice of resolution was
served upon petitioner. Ilusorio-Bildner, nonetheless, learned about the matter.
In other vein, respondent lawyer contends that the petition was filed beyond the 15-
day reglementary period and that even on the assumption that the petition was
timely filed, that the petition is premature as it is not based on a notice of resolution,
hence, the same should be dismissed for being inappropriate and improper.
Furthermore, he also challenges the qualification of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent’s argument as to the qualification of the petitioner who
has purported to have lack of personal knowledge of the facts alleged in the
complaint has merit.
Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the conflict of interest rule.
HELD:
1.No, personal knowledge is not a requisite for filing a disbarment complaint
as Section 1, Rule 139-B states, “Section 1. How instituted- Proceedings for
disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified
complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts
complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantive said facts.
Clearly, personal knowledge is required, not of the complainant, but of her
witnesses, if there are any. While the Supreme Court notes petitioner’s claim that
she herself has personal knowledge of the alleged facts, a ruling on such allegation
in unnecessary in the light of the foregoing discussion.
2.Yes, Notwithstanding his acknowledged involvement in both the
Sandiganbayan and SEC cases, respondent denies that he was guilty of representing
conflicting interests, he proffering that, in the first place, the case of Ilusorio in the
Sandiganbayan “has been the personal account of Atty. Raval, separate and apart
from the accounts of the law partnership.” Not only is this claim unsubstantiated,
however. It is contradicted by respondent’s own evidence and statements.
As earlier noted, respondent has stated that Ilusorio was represented by his
firm in the Sandiganbayan case. In light thereof, respondent was personally barred
by the rules of ethics from representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused
by his firm.
Wherefore, the Resolution of IBP Board of Governors is SET ASIDE.
Respondent if guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Suspended for 3 months with warning that a repetition of the
same shall be dealt with more severely.

Question No. 3
Is a judge exempted from the MCLE program?
Answer:
Yes, amendment to Bar Matter 850, (Resolution of the Court En Banc, July 13,
2004), Rule 7, Section 1, paragraph c, provides that, “Parties exempted from the
MCLE- The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent
members of Judicial Bar Council, incumbent members of the Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education Committee, incumbent court lawyers who have availed of the
Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing judicial education.”. Hence, as
 an incumbent or retired member of the judiciary, a judge is exempted from the
MCLE program provided that he applied and took an oath to be such.

V. BRYAN
a. Are generalized averments in a bar complaint compliant to the rule in the
institution of bar complaint proceedings?

Answer: No. Generalized averments in a bar complaint is not compliant to the rule in
the institution of bar complaint proceeding. Under Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules
of Court, proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and
concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits or persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may
substantiate said facts. Averments that are general in its sense do not comply with
“clear” and “concise” facts as per required by the Rules of Court. Therefore, generalized
averments in a bar complaint is not compliant to the rule when instituting bar
complaint proceedings.

b. Submit case digest of Ramientas vs. Reyala, A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006.

Noriel Michael J. Ramientas, petitioner vs. Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyala, respondent

A.C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006

FACTS:

The present controversy stemmed from an Administrative Complaint filed by Noriel

Michael J. Ramientas on February 16, 2004 before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), Commission on Bar Discipline, seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty.
Jocelyn P. Reyala. The complaint was anchored on respondent Reyala's alleged violative
acts: (1) submitting a pleading before the Court of Appeals bearing the forged signature
of another lawyer; and (2) her continuous handling of a case while working in the Court
of Appeals; both contrary to a) Articles 171, 182, 184 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC); b) the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers; and c) conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer.

Hearing on the merits thereafter ensued. In its Resolution passed on December 17,
2005, the IBP Board of Governors resolved to adopt the recommendation of Atty.
Edmund T. Espina, Investigating Commissioner, finding respondent Reyala guilty of the
abovementioned violative acts. It, however, modified the recommended penalty to be
imposed from six months suspension (from the practice of law) to two years, with the
corresponding warning that a repetition of any breach of her professional duties will be
dealt with more severely.

On February 13, 2006, the Office of the Bar Confidant, SC, received a letter dated
January 30, 2006, from Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan, Director for Bar Discipline of the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, addressed to SC Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban,
stating therein the transmittal of documents (Notice of Resolution and Records of the
case consisting of Volume I 1-185 pages) pertaining to the above case pursuant to Rule
139-B.

In the interregnum, however, respondent Reyala submitted to the IBP an Urgent Motion
for Reconsideration of the resolution suspending her. On 7 March 2006, the SC En Banc,
acting on the letter and transmittal, resolved to require complainant Ramientas and
respondent Reyala to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for
decision/resolution based on the pleadings and documents already on record. Both
parties submitted their compliance thereto.

In his Manifestation, complainant Ramientas acceded to the submission of the case for
decision/resolution based on the pleadings already on record. Respondent Reyala, on
the other hand, demurred to such submission for the meantime considering that the
Motion for Reconsideration she earlier filed before the IBP remained unresolved to
date. Further, she stated that when she scheduled said motion for hearing, she was
informed by the IBP that it was precluded from acting on the aforesaid motion as it had
already transmitted to this Court the whole records of the particular case together with
the Resolution, which recommended that she be suspended from the practice of law for
two years. Thus, she prayed that her motion for reconsideration be decided first by the
IBP Board of Governors before submitting the case for decision/resolution to this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Atty. Reyala’s motion for reconsideration be

remanded first to the IBP for proper disposition.

RULING:

Yes. Parenthetically, at first glance, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the rules governing
the disbarment and discipline of attorneys, shows that there is no provision regarding
motions for reconsideration of resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors suspending
respondent lawyers. However, worth noting is the fact that neither does it particularly
proscribe the filing of such motions.
A judicious review of the current jurisprudence will reveal that said impasse is more
ostensible than real. The pronouncement in the case of Halimao vs. Villanueva,
promulgated close to two decades after the effectivity of the IBP By-Laws, effectively
amended the latter in so far as motions for reconsideration of IBP resolutions in
disciplinary cases against lawyers are concerned.

Although Rule 139-B makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its
text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed
within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be
encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of exhaustion of
administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering the judgment an opportunity to
correct any error it may have committed through a misapprehension of facts or
misappreciation of the evidence.

Clearly, the aforequoted ruling amended the IBP By-Laws in that it effectively removed
a motion for reconsideration from the roster of proscribed pleadings in the level of the
IBP. It must be remembered that it is well within the Court's power to amend the By-
Laws of the IBP - of the same vests in this Court the power to amend, modify or repeal
it, either motu proprio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

Prescinding from the above, though the aforequoted ruling involves Rule 139-B,
nothing in the decision contradicts its application of the same rule, thus, it now stands
that a motion for reconsideration of IBP resolutions may be filed by an aggrieved party
within the period stated.

Certainly, prudence dictates that the IBP be given the opportunity to correct its
mistakes, if any, by way of motions for reconsideration before this Court takes
cognizance of the case. This is to further insure that the grievance procedure will be
allowed to duly run its course – a form of filtering process, particularly respecting
matters within the competence of the IBP, before the Court steps in.

In fine, though such remand will hold back the advancement of the case, nevertheless, it
bears emphasizing that it is equally important that the IBP be afforded the opportunity
to set things as it should be. Observance of this basic principle is a sound practice and
policy and should never be compromised at the altar of expediency.

It is hereby resolved, that in accordance with the ruling in Halimao vs. Villanueva,
pertinent provisions of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline, as contained in the By-Laws of the IBP are hereby deemed amended.
Consistent with the discussions hereinabove set forth, let the whole record of this case
be immediately remanded to the IBP for the proper disposition of respondent Atty.
Jocelyn P. Reyala's motion for reconsideration.

c. Is your professor in ADR exempted from the MCLE program?

Answer: It depends. Under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 7 of B.M. 850, professors teaching
Alternative Dispute Resolution is not one of the exempted parties from the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education program, unless he or she has teaching experience for at
least 10 years in accredited law school and therefore may file a verified request setting
forth good cause for exemption from compliance in accordance with a procedure to be
established by the MCLE Committee.

VI. CARLA
a. Is hearsay evidence allowed in the institution of bar complaint proceeding?

No. Under the Rules of Court Rule 139-B, Section 1, “Proceedings for disbarment,
suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu
proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon verified complaint of
any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of
and shall be supported by affidavits or persons having personal knowledge of the
facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate such facts.”

For a bar complaint proceeding to be instituted, there must be a verified complaint

from any person having personal knowledge of the facts filed with the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and not merely on hearsay evidence.
`
Hence, hearsay evidence is not allowed in the institution of bar complaint
proceeding.

b. Is the Supreme Court bound by the fact-findings of the investigator?

No. The Rules of Court Rule 139-B, Section 12 (a) and (b) provides that, (a) “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. The
decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and
distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be
promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting
of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report
(b) 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.”

The report of the investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors and
shall transmit their decision to the Supreme Court through a resolution setting forth
its findings and recommendations whether the respondent should be suspended
from the practice of law or disbarred.

Hence, Supreme Court is not bound by the fact-findings of the investigator but also
considers the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors.

c. To ensure compliance with the MCLE by covered lawyers, what is the

requirement in case such lawyers will file court-bound documents?

Bar Matter No. 850 or Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rule 11, Section 1
states that “Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card
before the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting
under oath that he has complied with the education requirement or that he is
exempt, specifying the nature of the exemption. Such Compliance Card must be
returned to the address indicated therein not later than the day after the end of the
member's compliance period.”

A lawyer whose report shows full compliance with the continuing legal education
requirement shall be issued a compliance card by the Committee.

VII. CATHERINE
A. Does the complainant need to have direct and immediate interest in the bar
complaint to be filed?
ANSWER:
No. The interest of complainant to initiate the complaint for disbarment is
immaterial. Complainant is not a party and has no interest in the outcome except as
all citizens have in the proper administration of justice. A disbarment proceeding is
sui generis, neither civil nor a criminal proceeding. Its purpose is to determine
whether or not a lawyer is still deserving to be a member of the bar. Investigations
by the Court concern the conduct of its officers. Hence, interest on the part
complainant is not required.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
 B. MAXIMO DUMADAG vs. ATTY. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA A.C. No. 2614 Case Digest

ANSWER:

MAXIMO DUMADAG vs. ATTY. ERNESTO L. LUMAYA

A.C. No. 2614 June 29, 2000

An administrative complaint for Unethical Practices, Conflict of Interest and

Disloyalty To Clients dated December 22, 1983 was filed by complainant against
respondent praying that the corresponding disciplinary action be imposed on the
latter, the case was referred to OSG and respondent was found culpable for infidelity
and disloyalty to his client, negligence of duty, unethical practices and violation of his
lawyer's oath.The Court found that respondent made a "clear breach of the canons of
professional responsibility"7 and suspended respondent indefinitely from the practice
of law.8

A "Petition For Reinvestigation and Reconsideration," 9 filed on July 8, 1991, was

subsequently denied by the Court. The records show that thereafter, respondent sent a
letter dated February 17, 1992. 11 Stressing in the said letter that he was not seeking a
reconsideration of the denial of his petition for reinvestigation, respondent averred in
sum that he was a "not very healthy" sixty-two (62) year old who merely wanted to
know how long he would stay suspended and if he was disqualified to be issued a
commission as a notary public considering that his commission was not renewed.

On July 26, 1994, respondent filed a Petition For The Lifting Of Respondent's
Suspension From The Practice Of Law 15 which the Court referred to the IBP for
evaluation, report and recommendation.

In a Report and Recommendation dated August 14, 1998, the Investigating

Commissioner recommended the lifting of the indefinite suspension of respondent. On
November 5, 1998, the Board of Governors of the IBP passed a resolution adopting the
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner acting favorably on respondent's
petition. Investigating Commissioner pointed out that respondent accepted his
suspension as God's grace but due to respondent's knowledge in law, he has been
continuously approached for legal advice or assistance, that respondent has observed
that there are poor people who actually need the services of a Lawyer, that actually
there are no permanent resident lawyer[s] in the nearby Municipalities and that the
only available lawyer’s fees are high.

In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice dated January 10, 2000, respondent who
turned Seventy-One (71) years old last October 25, 1999, once again implores and at
the same time chides the Court for "slumbering" on acting upon the IBP Resolution to
lift his indefinite suspension, although he still insists on his innocence.

ISSUE: Should the petition for the lifting of suspension be granted?

RULING:

The court ruled that the insolence of respondent's remonstrations that the Court has
been sleeping on its job in acting upon his case not only underscores his callous
disregard of the myriad administrative and judicial travails the Court has to contend
with as the Tribunal of Last Resort, among them, the chronic problem of an overflowing
docket of which his case is but one additional aggravation; it also betrays his absolute
lack of appreciation and disrespect for the efforts and measures undertaken by the
Court to cope with these concerns. Thus, such presumptuousness is only too deserving
of rebuke.

Respondent must also know that the Court is neither bound by the findings of the
IBP nor, much less, obliged to accept the same as a matter of course 17 because as the
Tribunal which has the final say on the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant
members of both bench and bar, 18 the Court has the prerogative of making its own
findings and rendering judgment on the basis thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG,
or any lower court to whom an administrative complaint has been referred to for
investigation and report as stated in Sections 1, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court.

Sec. 1. How instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline

of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits
of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said facts.

Sec. 14. Report of the Solicitor General or 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 together with the record
and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the final action of the Supreme
Court. (emphasis supplied).

Sec. 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. — After receipt of respondent's

answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the
instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigators,
may suspend an attorney from the practice of his profession for any of the causes
specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of the investigation until such
suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.

Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court. —

The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice of
 any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme
Court in the case.

Sec. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further

proceedings in Supreme Court. — 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
full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar
the attorney as the facts may warrant.

Respondent's suspension for more than nine (9) years to date, for his professional
indiscretion, underscored by his insistent protestations of innocence, appears not to
have fully reformed him and opened his eyes to the error of his ways. Such an
unrepentant attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge his misconduct puts his fitness
for re-admission to the practice of law under serious inquiry. Respondent must always
remember that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence
to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality
and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions
required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has
ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is
not only a right but a bounden duty as well.That is why respect and fidelity to the Court
is demanded of its members. 21

The period of respondent's suspension from the practice of law was hereby fixed at
Ten (10) Years. The "Petition For The Lifting Of Respondent's Suspension From The
Practice Of Law" was, therefore, DENIED.

C. What happened to a court-filed document in which the lawyer who filed the
same failed to indicate compliance with MCLE?
ANSWER:
All pleadings or court-filed document submitted may be expunged from the records of
the court because of failure by the lawyer to indicate his/her compliance with MCLE
requirements since it is required that practicing members of the Bar indicate in all
pleadings or other documents filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as
may be applicable.

VIII. CHARLENE JOY

A. Is the complainant required to have personal knowledge of a bar allegations in a
bar complaint?
Answer:
No. Section 1 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court only requires that the complaint
shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by
such documents as may substantiate the said facts.
There was no requirement that the complainant himself or herself must have personal
knowledge of the bar allegations. The requirements are only personal affidavit of persons
having such personal knowledge or documents that prove such facts.
Furthermore, any person, who has no private interest in the outcome of the case
except as any other citizen’s interest in the proper administration of justice, may institute
a bar complaint against any lawyer as bar complaints against lawyers are sui generis in
nature.

B. Is it mandatory for the IBP to conduct formal investigation in case a bar

complaint is referred to it by the Supreme Court?
Answer:
Yes. Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the court.
If at the outset the court finds the petition lacks merit it dismisses the case outright but if
the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry shoud be made, a referral is made to the
IBP for a formal investigation to be conducted.
In Arandia v Magalong, wherein the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration
for the case filed against the respondent was dismissed when the investigating
commisioner of the IBP did not conduct a formal investigation and merely based on the
original rollo of the case transmitted by the court, the court held that a formal
investigation is a mandatory requirement which mah not be dispensed exceot for valid
and compelling reasons. Thus, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court directs an investigator or
a panel of investigators appointed as such by the IBP to investigate all complaints
referred by the said body to him.
 C. What is the sanction to be imposed upon a lawyer who fails to comply with the
MCLE program?

Answer:
Rule 13 of Bar Matterr 850 provides that the consequences for non-compliance of the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education are the payment of a non-compliance fee if any
member of the bar is non-compliant at the end of a compliance period and if any member
of the bar fails to provide adequate justification of compliance within 60 days from the
date of the notice of non-compliance shall also be listed as a deliquent member.

IX. EDNALIN

Efren G. Battad vs. Senator Miriam Palma Defensor-Santiago

A.C. No. 8519, February 22, 2010

FACTS:
On January 7, 2010, Efren G. Battad filed a Complaint against Senator Miriam P.
Defensor-Santiago (Sen. Santiago) for serious misconduct, violation of Presidential
Decree No. 1829, and Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant
alleged that Sen. Santiago committed the following acts:

4.1. Culpable violation of the Constitution. By her deliberate failure to make a full
disclosure of her financial and business interests.  She purchased a lot and built a tiled
mansion in La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, at an estimated cost of at least
P53,204,631.00; a building in Quezon City; and a weekend mansion in Tagaytay City,

4.2. Graft and corruption, and unexplained wealth. For many years, respondent was a
rented apartment dweller until she suddenly acquired the La Vista mansion and occupied
the same in June 2002. The value of the newly acquired properties is grossly
disproportionate to her salary as Senator which, according to her, is "P43,000.00 per
month;"

4.3. Obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of a criminal offense. When her son
Alexander Robert violently died in her house in La Vista, Quezon City, on November 20,
2003, respondent claimed it was "suicide". Law enforcement agencies of the government
were not allowed to conduct scene of the crime investigation.   She had the cadaver of her
son immediately cremated, thus destroying, suppressing and concealing the very corpus
delicti of the offense;

4.4. When appointed as Secretary of Agrarian Reform in 1990, her appointment   was  
unanimously rejected by the Commission on Appointments, then presided by Senate
President Jovito Salonga. The charge against her was graft and corruption for having
stolen the Toyota Supra sports car of Margarita Roxas from the custody of the Bureau of
Customs. Her husband, Narciso Santiago, Jr., was at that time connected with the Bureau
of Customs;

4.5. As former Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation in 1988 to 1989,

respondent embarked on her corrupt and notorious "Alien Legalization Program". Under
this program, thousands of aliens who opted to legalize their residence in the Philippines
were charged with at least P200,000.00 each. Unfortunately, the fees collected were not
remitted to the government. Worse, one (1) receipt was repeatedly used for 10 or more
aliens;

4.6. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is of unsound mind. She appeals to be suffering
from a severe mental disorder, characterized by the following symptoms:
a. Delusion of grandeur. She wanted to be President of the Philippines; Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court; and a Member of the International Court of Justice. In all of these
attempts to be such, she miserably failed;
b. Flight of ideas;
c. Mood swings;
d. Penchant for lying; and
e. Paranoia;

4.7. Unparliamentary behavior. She repeatedly abused her position and power as Senator
to defame and slander people,  x x x She has repeatedly, with impunity, violated the
lawyer's duty as a Member of the Bar to abstain from all offensive [behavior] x x x and
her duty to uphold the dignity of the court by using offensive language x x x   Further, the
Senator has continuously abused her privilege as a lawyer and as a Senator by indulging
in offensive [behavior] and language x x x;

4.8. Using her position and power as Senator, she gave unwarranted benefits to her
husband, brother, sister, son and cousin by having them appointed to the government
posts;

4.9. Repeated disrespect to the Supreme Court, and lack of remorse;

ISSUE:
Whether or not Sen. Santiago be disbarred and her name be removed from the Roll of
Attorneys by her serious misconduct, violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829, and
Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility as alleged by the complainant on his
complaint?

HELD:
No. Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on Disbarment and Discipline of
Attorneys provides:

SECTION 1.  How Instituted. - Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline
of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall
state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits
of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such
documents as may substantiate said facts.

The Court scrutinized the complaint and it find that the allegations contained therein are
mere generalizations, speculations, malicious insinuations, and conclusions without any
factual basis.

Likewise, complainant's deposition that the allegations "are true and correct based on
authentic records" is not exactly accurate. No document or so-called authentic records
were attached to the complaint to substantiate the allegations stated therein.

Thus, the Court dismissed the case for lack of merit.

1. Case digest

Noemi Arandia vs. Atty. Ermando Magalong

A.C. No. 5094, August 6, 2002

FACTS:
Complainant Noemi Arandia filed with the Court a complaint-affidavit charging
respondent Atty. Ermando Magalong of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
for making threats against her and her husband in connection with complainant’s alleged
debts to his client.

The complainant alleged that she was summoned by respondent to his office, where he
threatened her that he would have her and her husband arrested if they did not make good
the checks they gave to respondent’s client, Jonelyn Bastareche. Complainant averred
that respondent’s actuations surprised her, since she was not aware of any outstanding
indebtedness on her or her husband’s part in favor of Ms. Bastareche. She received from
respondent’s secretary respondent’s letter addressed to a certain "SPO2 Bautista/warrant
officer" requesting that the issuance of the warrant of arrest against complainant and her
husband be held in abeyance pending the ongoing negotiations between them and his
clients, the Bastareche spouses.

For fear that she and her husband would indeed be arrested by the police, complainant
obeyed respondent’s instructions to her and signed a document captioned Malinawong
Kasabutan (Amicable Settlement) before the Lupong Tagapamayapa of their barangay.
Subsequently, when she verified from the trial court whether there was a pending warrant
of arrest against her, complainant discovered that no such warrant was issued by the
court.

In the Comment of the respondent, he claimed that complainant had an existing

obligation to pay his client, Jonelyn Bastareche, Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00), the amount corresponding to the two bouncing checks which she had
earlier rediscounted to Bastareche. Respondent contended that after Bastareche’s and
respondent's efforts to collect the said amount from complainant failed, they decided to
file a criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. He instructed his client to go
to the police investigator and file a sworn complaint against complainant.

Respondent said that he was not able to talk to Bastareche for about a week after he
instructed her to file the complaint. He further alleged that complainant went to his office
and submitted a proposal to settle the dispute between her and Bastareche. Respondent
informed complainant that about a week ago, he ordered Bastareche to file a complaint
against her. Upon hearing this, complainant insisted that her proposal be relayed
immediately to Bastareche, and that the warrant of arrest against her, if such had already
been issued, be held in abeyance. Believing that Bastareche had already filed a complaint
against complainant, respondent wrote the letter addressed to "SPO2 Bautista/warrant
officer" requesting that the issuance of the warrant of arrest be held in abeyance.

The Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation,
report and recommendation. Atty. Victor C. Fernandez, IBP Director for Bar Discipline,
submitted to the Court a Notice of Resolution and the Records of the case. The
Resolution of the Board of Governors, adopted the recommendation of the investigating
commissioner that the case against the respondent be dismissed for lack of merit.

Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP’s Resolution. She alleged that
she was not furnished a copy of said resolution and that it was respondent who gave her a
copy thereof. Complainant further claimed that she did not receive a copy of the Answer
filed by respondent with the IBP.

Respondent filed his Comment and Manifestation as required by the Court, whereby he
informed the Court that he was adopting the Comment which he submitted to the
Investigating Commissioner of the IBP before.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the conduct of a formal investigation is necessary for the proper
resolution of the case?

HELD:
Yes. It appears that the report and recommendation of the IBP was based merely on the
Original Rollo of the case which was sent by the Court to the IBP. No hearing was
conducted to determine the veracity of complainant’s and respondent’s respective
allegations.
In Baldomar vs. Paras, the Court held:
Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the
outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses
the case. If, however, the Court deems is necessary that further inquiry should be made,
such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings
submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during
which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may
only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.
It must be emphasized that a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may
not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons. Thus, Rule 139-B of the
Revised Rules of Court which outlines the procedure for disbarment and disciplinary
cases against members of the Bar, directs an investigator or a panel of investigators
appointed as such by the IBP Board of Governors to investigate all complaints referred
by said body to him, or to the panel, as the case may be. In conducting an investigation,
the investigator or investigating panel must comply with the following:
Sec. 5. 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. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the
complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu propio or upon
timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the
complaint.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance,
settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complaint
to prosecute the same.
“Sec. 8. 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.
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the
Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The corresponding
charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall
require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP
Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary in accordance with the
procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as
far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement.
Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a period of fifteen (15) days issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of
penalty.”
Thus, the Court REMANDED the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further
proceedings.

2. What should an incumbent judge do for the purpose of availing MCLE

exemption?
 Sec. 1, Rule 11 of Bar Matter No. 850 (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) provides
that, “Each member shall secure from the MCLE Committee a Compliance Card before
the end of his compliance period. He shall complete the card by attesting under oath that
he has complied with the education requirement or that he is exempt, specifying the
nature of exemption. Such Compliance Card must be returned to the address indicated
therein no later than the day after the end of the member’s compliance period.” However,
under MCLE Governing Board Resolution No. 05-2019 (Resolution Prescribing the
Automatic Exemption from the MCLE of All Incumbent and Retired Members of the
Judiciary), the Board resolves that:
1. All incumbent and retired members of the judiciary are no longer required to file
an Attestation of Exemption and are considered automatically exempted from the
MCLE starting this current 7th MCLE Compliance period based on the
lists/records to be submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator to the
MCLE Office;
2. The MCLE Office should automatically issue the corresponding certificates of
exemption of all incumbent and retired members of the judiciary commencing on
the 7th MCLE compliance period and every compliance period thereafter based on
the lists/records to be secured from/submitted by the OCA. Further, the OCA is
requested to immediately update the MCLE office of any new appointment,
retirement, resignation, death, suspension or dismissal from the service;
3. Penalties for the non-compliance and/or late filing fee for the past compliance
period/s are not deemed waived and shall be assessed and should be settled prior
to issuance of the corresponding certificate/s of exemption for the current
compliance period;
4. For purposes of clarification, no exemption fee is required of all incumbent and
retired members of the judiciary and all other exempt lawyers enumerated under
Rule 7, Section 1, Bar Matter No. 850.

X. FE MARIE
Questions:
1. May a judge be investigated by the Commission on Bar Discipline?
2. Submit case digest of Sitaca vs Palomares, A.C. 5285, April 14, 2004
3. A bar complaint which fails to comply with the form and substance requirement. Is
this defect fatal to the proceedings?

Answers:
1. Generally, no. Complaints against judges and justices are instituted by the Supreme
Court, motu propio or upon a verified complaint. The same Court shall refer such to
the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation or
assign the same to a retired member of the Supreme Court if the respondent is a
Justice of the CA and the Sandiganbayan, or to a Justice of the CA if the respondent
is a judge of RTC or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of the RTC if
the respondent is a judge of the inferior courts, for investigation, report, and
recommendation. Meanwhile, under the rules, Commission on Bar Discipline hears
all cases filed before or referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
However, under Sec. 1 of Rule 139-B, if IBP receives complaint for disbarment,
suspension, and discipline against a judge, it shall forward the same to the Supreme
Court (SC), as the proper authority, for appropriate disposition. Provided however,
that when interest of justice so requires, the SC may refer the complaint to IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation as provided for under Sec. 13 of the same
rule. Hence, the CBP is not allowed, motu propio, to investigate a judge unless and
until the complaint is referred to IBP by the Supreme Court for the purposes of
investigation, report, and recommendation.

2. Sitaca vs. Palomares

A.C. 5285, April 14, 2004

Facts:
Judge Nimfa Sitaca is the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the RTC of
Ozamis City. Among the cases in her sala was a murder case against Dunhill
Palomares, the son of Atty. Diego Palomares, Jr, herein respondent. She filed a
disbarment complaint against the respondent alleging the latter used a forged
document in securing a bail bond for the temporary release of his son. The court
issued a resolution referring the disbarment case to the IBP formal investigation. In a
report and recommendation, Commissioner Milagros San Juan of the Commission of
Bar Discipline held that there was no doubt that bail bond and order of release were
fictitious. She then recommended that Atty Palomares be suspended from the practice
for eighteen (18) months. Such was adopted by the IBP Board of Governors.

Issue:
Whether or not the IBP erred in following the procedures of investigation as
laid in Rule 139-B by not investigating the complaint.

Ruling:
Yes. The prevailing procedure for investigation is expressed in Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court. Sec. 3 of such rule provides that the National Grievance
Investigator shall investigate all complaints against members of the IBP referred to
them by the IBP Board of Governors. Further, Sec. 5 of the same rules reads that 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 complaint is not
meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his
recommendation. Also, Sec 8, still of the same rule, states that 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. On the instant case, it appears that no
investigation, not even just an ex-parte investigation, was conducted by Commission
on Bar Discipline.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative case is REMANDED to the IBP for
further proceedings, it is also directed to act on this referral with dispatch.

3. No. Under Sec. 11 of Rule 139-B, no defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in

the proceeding or the Investigator’s report shall be considered as substantial
unless the Board of Governors, upon consideration of the whole record, finds that
such defect has resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice. Hence, a bar
complaint which fails to comply with the form and substance requirement does
not cause any fatality to the proceedings unless such defect results in miscarriage
of justice.

XI. FREDERICK
1.
Anna Cecillia. G. Cabati et al, vs. Atty. Alfonso R. Reyno et al.
A.C. No. 4948of the IBP
Facts:

Complainant Cabati was the bookkeeper of Attys. Alfonso Reyno, Jr. and Yolanda G.
Reyno (Reyno spouses) for their personal and business accounts. She was also the
bookkeeper of the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo and Santos Law Offices. The Reyno
spouses filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor in Pasig City a complaint against
Cabati and her common-law husband, complainant Raynon, charging them with
qualified theft through falsification of commercial documents and theft through
falsification of commercial documents, respectively. Complaint-Affidavit filed by Attys.
Alfonso Reyno, Jr. and Yolanda G. Reyno against Ana Cecilia G. Cabati and Fernando C.
Raynon, Rollo, pp. 122-129. Cabati, in complicity with Reynon, allegedly forged the
signature of Atty. Yolanda G. Reyno in checks which were in her custody by virtue of her
position in order to withdraw large amounts of money from the personal accounts of
the Reyno spouses.

Subsequently, complainants filed countercharges against respondents with the Office of

the City Prosecutor in Pasig City serious illegal detention, light threats, robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons and carnapping. Petitioners claimed that on
November 24, 1997, they were subjected by respondent Reyno, Jr. and a certain Col.
Douglas Rosete to separate interrogations regarding alleged unauthorized
disbursements from the accounts of the Reyno spouses. They likewise alleged that
respondents acted collectively and in conspiracy in detaining them against their will at
the Reyno De Vera Tiu Domingo and Santos Law Offices, coercing them into admitting
responsibility for the aforementioned unauthorized disbursements from the Reynos'
accounts, and compelling them to execute several documents conveying their real and
personal properties to the Reyno spouses in restitution for the amounts which thy took
from the accounts of the former.

The Court after receiving the respondent comments, refer the case to the IBP for
investigation, report and recommendation.
The complainant then opposed the referral of the case because respondent has a closed
relationship to the IBP Spokesperson as a firm partner and to the National President of
the IBP as his brother in fraternity.
Issue: Whether or not the close association of the respondent Atty. Reyno Jr. with some
official of the IBP will prevent the referral of the case for investigation to Integrated Bar
of the Philippines?

Held:
Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that:
“Any Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity to any of the parties or their counsel, pecuniary
interest, personal bias, or his having acted as counsel of either party, unless the parties
sign and enter upon the record their written consent to his acting as such Investigator.
Where the Investigator does not disqualify, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of
Governors which by majority vote of the members present, there being a quorum, may
order of his disqualification.”
That the respondent is a firm partner of Atty. Leonard De Vera, IBP Spokesperson,
and his brother in fraternity, Atty. Jose Grapilon, National President, is not sufficient
ground to brand the entire organization as biased. The provision given above clearly
shows on how the selection of the Investigators is strictly made, not allowing any
Investigator to conduct investigation if he has relationship or interest to any of the
parties or counsel of the parties. Moreover, if Investigator shows any manifestation of
partiality during the investigation, complainants can as for his disqualification.
Therefore, the complainants’ opposition to the referral of the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation or decision and their request that the same
be referred to the Court of Appeals instead are denied for lack of merit.
II. Can a respondent in a bar complaint be placed under preventive suspension?
A: Yes. Rule 139-B Section 15 and 16 explicitly says that an attorney may
be suspended for any of the following causes specifically mentioned in
Section 27 of Rule 138:

A. Deceit, Malpractice, and other gross misconduct in his office;

B. By reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
C. For violation of the oath which he is required to take before the
admission to practice;
D. For willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court;
and
E. For corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority to do so.
III . Who investigates and who resolves a bar complaint filed in the IBP?
A: The so called “National Grievance Investigators” appointed by the IBP
Board of Governors are responsible for the investigation and their
subsequent findings and recommendations will be reviewed by the IBP
Board of Governors who will resolve the complaint whether the case be
dismiss or impose against the respondent disciplinary action upon
majority votes of its total membership. But the majority decision of the
IBP Governors will be submitted before the Supreme Court for final
action.

XII. GENEVIE

a. Who can conduct investigation of bar complaints?

Section 3 Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that, in the proceeding of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the National Grievance Investigators shall investigate
all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board
of Governors. According to Section 2 of the same rule, the Board of Governors shall
appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or, when special circumstances so
warrant, a panel of three (3) investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators
shall take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of
the Investigator's appointment and oath shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

Moreover, Section 13 Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that, in proceedings
initiated motu propio 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, in
which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6 to
11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly
by the Supreme Court.
b. May a bar complaint proceeding be publicized in the exercise of freedom of
expression or of the press?

Section 18 of the Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that 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.
Hence, only the final order shall be publicized as the stated in the above confidentiality
rule.

c. What is the rotation scheme in the selection of IBP National President?

Section 7 of the Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court provides that the Presidency shall
rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions in such order or rotation as the
Board of Governors shall prescribe. No person shall be President or Executive Vice
President of the Integrated Bar for more than one term.

XIII. HEINRICH
a. Specifically, who, in the IBP, will conduct investigation of bar complaints?
Answer. Rule 139-B Section 2. (par.1) of the Rules of Court provides that the
investigation in the Bar Complaints will be conducted by the National Grievance
Investigators. — The Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP members an
Investigator or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3)
investigators to investigate the complaint.

b. Submit case digest of Maravillas vs. Galunan, 194935, Nov. 14, 2012.
Facts: Complainant Maravillas have a pending case of disbarment, when
respondents Teresa Dulla and Jerome Galunan, reporters of SunStar Bacolod published
an article which reported the existence of the disbarment case against Maravillas.
Complainant claims that the article they published seriously affect his good name and
reputation as a member of the Philippine Bar and as an elected official. Thus, violating
section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
Respondent defense rests mainly on the freedom of expression. They claim that the
rule on confidentiality cannot subvert such constitutionally guaranteed freedom.
Issue: Whether or not the confidentiality rule governing disbarment proceedings
must yield to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression; and
 Whether or not respondents violated the confidentiality character of disbarment
proceedings.
Ruling: Freedom of expression is not absolute. Confidentiality regarding such
proceedings is a key to maintaining the integrity of the Court and its decisions. This is
the basis for the confidentiality rule as an exception to the guarantee of free expression.
Respondents violated the confidentiality character of disbarment proceedings
Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides that proceedings against
attorney shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme
Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases.

c. What is the rotation scheme in the selection of IBP regional governor?

Answer: Rule 139-A Sec.6. Board of Governors— The Integrated Bar shall be
governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected by the House of
Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from
each Region. Each Governor shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by
the Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall come
from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the
Governors from outside of themselves as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall
ipso facto become members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of
their election and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified.
No person may be a Governor for more than two terms.
Sec. 5 par 3 of the same rule provides that the house shall hold an annual
convention at the call of the Board of Governors at any time during the month of
April eac

XIV. IRISH

a. What is the role of the IBP local chapter in bar complaint proceedings?
The role of the IBP local chapter in bar complaint proceedings is as stated in
Section 1 of Rule 139-B, the Chapter Board Officers upon referral may initiate
and prosecute proper charges against an attorney. In addition, Section 4 of the
same rule states that the proper IBP Chapter may assist the complainant in the
preparation and filing of his complainants.
b. State the purposes for the Integration of the bar.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines was been created on January 6, 1973 under
Rule of Court 139-A. The Rule 139-A also stated its fundamental purposes which
is under Section 2 that states, “The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar
 shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.”
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines By-Laws in its General Provision, Section 2
stated its specified purposes, which are:
1. Assist in the administration of justice;
2. Foster and maintain, on the part of its members, high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
3. Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
4. Cultivate among its member a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
5. Provide a forum for the discussion of law jurisprudence, law reform, pleading,
practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the
public, and publish information relating thereto;
6. Encourage and foster legal education; and
7. Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective
law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.

c. What is the term of office of elected officers of the IBP and when does it
commence?

The elected officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are the House
Delegates, Board of Governors, the President and an Executive Vice President.
The Rule of Court, Rule 139-A, Section 5 states, The House Delegates’ term shall
begin on the date of the opening of the annual convention of the House and shall
end on the day immediately preceding the date of the opening of the next
succeeding annual convention. The House hold annual convention at the call of
the Board of Governors at any time during the month of April of each year.
The Rule of Court, Rule 139-A, Section 6 states, The Delegates shall serve not
more than two terms. The member of the Board of Governors shall hold office for
a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors shall
be duly elected and qualified. No persons shall hold the office as Governor for
more than two terms. The Board shall meet regularly every three months.
The Rule of Court, Rule 139-A, Section 7 states, The President and the Executive
Vice President shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their
election and until their successors shall be duly qualified. The Executive Vice
President shall automatically become the President for the next succeeding full
term. No person shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated
Bar for more than one term
XV. JAIME

a. What are the grounds for disqualification of the investigators in the IBP?
Sec. 2 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that an Investigator may be
disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity to any of the parties or their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his
having acted as counsel for either party, unless the parties sign and enter upon the
record their written consent to his acting as such Investigator. Where the
Investigator does not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to the IBP Board of
Governors, which by majority vote of the members present, there being a quorum,
may order his disqualification.

Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by the vote of at
least six (6) members of the IBP Board Governors. The decision of the Board of
Governors in all cases of disqualification or removal shall be final.

b. Enumerate the Nine Regions of the IBP. 

Sec. 3. of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court provides that the Philippines is hereby
divided into nine Regions of the Integrated Bar, to wit:
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet,
Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union,
Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija,
Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Zambales; chanrobles virtua law library
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila and Quezon City;
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavity Laguna,
Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal;
(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Al bay, Camarines Norte, Camarines
Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon;
(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern Samar,
Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and Southern Leyte;
(g) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo,
Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor;
(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del
Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Nlisamis
Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and
(i) Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga, and the
provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur Misamis Occidental, South
Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur.

In the event of the creation of any new province, the Board of Governors shall, with
the approval of the Supreme Court, determine the Region to which the said province
shall belong.

c. State the procedure in filling-up vacancies in the IBP officership.

Section 7 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court provides that the Integrated Bar
shall have a President and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the
Governors immediately after the latter's election, either from among themselves or
from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at least five Governors.
Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President for the
Region which he represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of one
year from the date of their election and until their successors shall have duly
qualified. The Executive Vice President shall automatically become the President for
the next succeeding full term. The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among
all the nine Regions in such order or rotation as the Board of Governors shall
prescribe. No person shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated
Bar for more than one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers and
employees as may be required by the Board of Governors, to be appointed by the
President with the consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the
Board or for such terms as it may fix. Said officers and employees need not be
members of the Integrated Bar.
Section 8 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court provides that In the event the
President is absent or unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the Executive
Vice President; and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the
 President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President during the
remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the event of the death,
resignation, removal, or disability of both the President and the Executive Vice
President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office until
the next succeeding election or during the period of disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of Governors, and all other
positions of Officers of the Integrated Bar shall be as provided in the By-Laws.
Whenever the term of an office or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to
fill a vacancy therein shall serve only for the unexpired term.

XVI. JENNIFER

a. What is the remedy against the order of an investigator who refused to inhibit from a bar
complaint investigation?
An investigator may be disqualified from taking part in a bar complaint investigation by
reasons stated in the par. 2, section 2 of Rule 139-B. Where he refused to inhibit, a party
may appeal to the IBP Board of Governors, which by majority vote of the members
present, there being a quorum, may order his disqualification. An investigator may also
be removed for cause after due hearing, by the vote of at least 6 members of the IBP
Board of Governors.

b. Under the present rule, is it possible for Baguio City lawyers to establish a separate
chapter from Benguet lawyers?
No. Under the Section 4 of Rule 139-A, a chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized
in every province, except those chapters which are explicitly stated in the section. Since
Baguio City is neither a province nor explicitly stated in Section 4 as an exception, then
Baguio City lawyers cannot establish a separate chapter from the Benguet lawyers.

c. What does “non-political IBP” mean?

It means that no lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office

in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible
for election of appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof.
He shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his
certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any
judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
XVII. JOSEPH

a. Is the fact that the IBP investigator is a fraternal brother of one of the parties in
the bar complaint sufficient ground for inhibition of said investigator?
No. Although Rule 139-B Section 2 of the Rules of Court states that an investigator
may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth degree of consanguinity
or affinity to any of the parties or their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias… ,
being a fraternal brother of one of the parties in the bar complaint is not a sufficient
ground for inhibition of said investigator.
In the case of Cabati vs. Atty. Reyno Jr, A.C. No. 4948, the Supreme Court ruled that
just because some of the respondents belong to the same fraternity as some of the IBP
officers is not a sufficient ground to brand the entire organization as biased. If the
investigator shows any manifestation of partiality during the investigation,
complainants can ask for his disqualification. Further, the investigator had to take an
oath and inhibition may be tantamount to a will of rendering personal bias.

b. What is an IBP chapter?

IBP Chapter is the one located in the different geographical areas of the country as
defined in Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court and the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines.
Section 4. Chapters. — A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every
province. Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by uniform
rules to be prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Supreme Court.

c. What is a voluntary bar association? Give an example.

A voluntary bar association is a private organization of lawyers. This is not mandated
unlike the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Example of this is the Philippine Bar Association which is the oldest voluntary national
organization of lawyers in the Philippines organized in 1900.
 XVIII. MAE HAZEL
A. What should the IBP Investigator do as initial action once it receives a bar
complaint for investigation?

Section 8 of Rule 139-B provides that 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.
Thus, the investigator will ascertain whether said complaint is meritorious. If the
complaint is 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 it is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed.
B. How many chapters can a lawyer belong to?

Section 4 of Rule 139-B provides that a Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be
organized in every province. Except as herein below provided, every city shall be
considered part of the province within which it is geographically situated.

Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall
be considered a member of the Chapter of the province, city, political subdivision or
area where his office, or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall
any lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.

Hence, a lawyer can only be a member in one Chapter of the IBP.

C. How many hours in one compliance period should a covered lawyer enroll for
purpose of MCLE compliance?

As provided in Rule 2 in BM 850 Adopting The Rules On Mandatory Continuing Legal

Education (MCLE) For Members Of The Integrated Bar Of The Philippines, a lawyer should
at least completed every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal
education activities approved by the MCLE Committee.
XIX. MARJORIE

A. True or false. A bar complaint dismissed in the IBP level is final and executory.
False. The IBP does not have the power to dismiss a bar complaint. The Board of
Governors may issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations. However,
no decision of the IBP may become final and executory unless it was upon the affirmation or
modification of the Supreme Court. This is so because the inherent power to discipline and
remove members of the Bar belongs to the Supreme Court, and not the IBP.

B. When is transfer of chapter not allowed? Why?

Pursuant to the IBP by-laws, transfer of chapter shall not be allowed if made less than
three months immediately preceding any Chapter election. This prohibition is due to the
required submission of the list of names of all the members entitled to vote by the Secretary
to the Board of Officers, which must be accomplished not earlier than twenty-five days and
not later that fifteen days prior to the elections. The voter’s list shall then remain closed and
shall not be altered except upon direction of the Board.

C. Are Attys. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, Leni Robredo, Allan Peter Cayetano, and Koko
Pimentel required to comply with the MCLE program?
No. Under Section 1 of Rule 7 of B.M. No. 850, members of the Executive and
Legislative branches of the government are expressly exempted from the MCLE requirement.
The exemption shall be valid only during the period of incumbency to their respective
positions, and is considered invalidated once the ground for exemption ceases. However,
these exempt lawyers are required to submit, together with their Attestation of Exemption, an
Authenticated Certificate of Incumbency, for the entire duration of the compliance period
applied for.

XX. MEL MARI

XXI. MYRNA
1. What is the form of answer to be filed by the respondent lawyer in a bar
complaint?

Verified answer. Rule 3, Sections 1 and 2, Bar Matter No. 1755, provides that “the only
pleadings allowed are verified complaints, verified answer and verified position papers.
The following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:
a. Motion to dismiss the complaint or the petition
b. Motion for a bill of particulars
c. Motion for a new trial
d. Petition for relief from judgment
e. Motion for reconsideration
f. Supplemental pleadings

2. What is the organizational structure of the IBP in the National Level?

The IBP is administered by the Board of Governors. There are nine (9) Governors
representing the nine (9) regions of the IBP. The Board of Governors elects the IBP
National President and IBP Executive Vice President from among themselves or from
outside the Board.
The IBP House of Delegates decides on important matters. The chamber is composed of
not more than one-hundred-twenty (120) members apportioned among all IBP Chapters
in major cities throughout the country. Every two (2) years, the IBP Board of Governors
makes a reappointment of delegates among all IBP chapters.
3. Is a MCLE-exempt lawyer automatically exempted from the MCLE program?

No. All exempt lawyers under Rule 7, Section 1, Bar Matter No. 850 are required to file
their Attestation of Exemption and the non-filing thereof constitutes non-compliance
under Section 1, Rule 12, Bar Matter No. 850, including members of the judiciary, except
justices of the Supreme Court, pursuant to A.M. No. 04-5-17-SC (Re: Request of the
Supreme Court Association of Lawyer-Employees [SCALE] from Payment of the MCLE
Exemption Fee).
However, MCLE Governing Board Resolution No. 05-2019 provides that “all incumbent
and retired members of the judiciary are no longer required to file Attestation of
Exemption and are automatically exempted from the MCLE starting 7 th MCLE
compliance period based on the lists/records to be submitted by the Office of the Court
Administrator to the MCLE Office. The MCLE Office should automatically issue the
corresponding certificates of exemption of all incumbent and retired members of the
judiciary commencing on the 7 th MCLE compliance period and every compliance period
thereafter based on the lists/records to be secured from/submitted by the OCA.

XXII. PEE-JAY
a. What are the instances in which formal investigation will be conducted by
the investigator?
Section 3 of Rule 139-B or otherwise known as Disbarment and Discipline of
Attorneys provides that Investigators shall investigate all complaints against
members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors. In
addition, the amended Section 13 of the same Rule permits the referral of
complaints initiated by the Supreme Court motu propio to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.
b. How is the IBP National President chosen?
Section 7 of Rule 139-A provides that the President of the Integrated Bar
shall be chosen by the Governors immediately after the latter’s election, either from
among themselves or from other member of the Integrated Bar, by the vote of at
least five Governors.
c. A MCLE-covered lawyer fails to comply with the MCLE. He prepared a
pleading, but required another lawyer, who is MCLE-compliant, to sign the
same. The pleading was then filed. Later, the former appeared in court in that
case. Is he still required to present compliance with the MCLE?
Section 1 of Rule 14 of BM No. 850 states that the involuntary listing as a
delinquent member shall be terminated when the member provides proof of
compliance with the MCLE requirement, including payment of non-compliance
fee. Therefore, a lawyer is required to present compliance with MCLE to clear his
name from inactive status and be able and permitted t

XXIII. PRINCESS

a. When is ex parte investigation done?

An ex parte investigation is done when the defendant failed to answer or failed to
appear at the pre-trial. Rule 18, Section 5 of the revised rules of court states that “The
failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the next preceding
section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice,
unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant
shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to
render judgment on the basis thereof.”

b. Submit case digest of In Re: Marcial Edillon, A.C. 1928, Aug. 3, 1978.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.
EDILLON

A.C. No. 1928, August 3, 1978

CASTRO, C.J.:
FACTS:
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the
Philippines. For respondent’s stubborn refusal to pay his memebership 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, pursuant to Par. 2, Sec. 24, Art. III of the
By-Laws of the IBP.
At the threshold, a painstaking scrutiny of the respondent’s pleadings would show
that the propriety and necessity of the integration of the Bar of the Philippines are in
essence conceded. The respondent, however, objects to particular features of Rule of
Court 139-A — in accordance with which the Bar of the Philippines was integrated —
and to the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws. The core of the
respondent’s arguments is that Section 1 and 9 of the Court Rule 139-A constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-
condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the
IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled
financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to
him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of the
Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his name
from the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable
cases triable by the Court but is rather of an "administrative nature pertaining to an
administrative body."

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 139-A constitute an invasion of constitutional rights
in the sense that it compels a lawyer to be a member of the IBP and violates his right to
associate?
2. Whether or not Section 9 of Rule 139-A is void because it requires a lawyer to pay the
corresponding dues, and as a consequence of this compelled financial support, he is
being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the
Constitution?
3. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to strike a lawyer’s name from the Roll of
Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable by
the Court but is rather of an administrative nature pertaining to an administrative
body?

HELD:
1. No. The contention of respondent that Section 1 of the Court Rule which states
that “There is hereby organized an official national body to be known as the "Integrated
Bar of the Philippines," composed of all persons whose names now appear or may
hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.”, is unconstitutional
for it impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to associate)
is without merit. The Court held that to compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Integration
does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He
became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration
actually does is to provide an official national organization for the well-defined but
unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is already a member. Bar
integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or
not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of
annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of
the regulatory program — the lawyers. Assuming that the questioned provision does in
a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is
justified as an exercise of the police power of the state.

2. The contention of respondent that Section 9 of the Court Rule which states that
“Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of
Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter shall be set aside as
a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of
deceased members thereof”, is void because it requires payment of a membership fee is
untenable. The Court see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the 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) — which power the respondent acknowledges — 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.
 3. Yes. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to
strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the
matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their
regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized as inherent
judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion. The
Court’s jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution when it explicitly
granted to the Court the power to "promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice . . .
and the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar . . ." (Article X,
Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a member of
the legal profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.
We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A and of the
By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither
unconstitutional nor illegal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the
respondent Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is
hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.

c. Can a lawyer be elected as an IBP officer for more than one term?
It depends. A lawyer can be elected for more than one term but not more than
two terms if he is a delegate. Rule 139-A, Section 5 states that “No person may be
a Delegate for more than two terms.” A lawyer can also be elected for more than
one term but not more than two terms if he is a member of the board of
governors. Rule 139-A, Section 6 states that “No person may be a Governor for
more than two terms.” But, a lawyer cannot be elected as an IBP officer for more
than one term if he is the President or Vice-President of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. Rule 139-A, Section 7 states that “No person shall be President or
Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar for more than one term.”

XXIV. ROBERTO

XXV. SIEGLYN
a. Where is the venue of the formal investigation of the bar complaint?

Section 1, Rule IV of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline

Integrated Bar of the Philippines provided the venue of the formal investigation of the
bar complaint which states that, “All cases filed before or referred to the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines shall be heard by the Commission on Bar Discipline in its principal office
at the IBP Bldg., Julia Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Pasig City”.

b. State the procedure for voluntary termination of IBP membership.

Section 21, Article II of the IBP By-Laws provides the procedure for voluntary
termination of IBP membership which states that, “A member may terminate his
membership by filing a verified notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated
Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme Court.
 Forthwith, he shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken from the Roll of
Attorneys.”

Further, the Supreme Court En Banc expressed that, “to terminate one’s membership
in the Bar voluntarily, it is imperative that the lawyer first prove that the voluntary
withdrawal of membership is not a ploy to further prejudice the public or to evade
liability. No such proof exists in the present case.” (Pacana vs. Lopez, A.C. No. 8243, July
24, 2009)

c. Who else in the judiciary can impose sanctions on erring lawyers as members
of the bar?

The following can impose sanctions on erring lawyers as members of the bar:

1. Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance - “may suspend an attorney from

practice” (Section 28, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court) based on grounds provided in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which are: deceit, malpractice or other
gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, violation of the Lawyer’ Oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order
of a superior court and corrupt or willful appearance as attorney for a party to case
without authority to do so.

2. Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court as provided in Section 16, Rule 139-B of
the Rules of Court may as well suspend lawyers until further action by the Supreme
Court in the case for the same causes aforementioned in Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.

3. Board of Governors – may suspend or remove as well as recommend to the

Supreme Court the erring member’s suspension from the practice of law or
disbarment (Section 13, Article I, The Integrated Bar of the Philippines By-Laws).

4. The Supreme Court

Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court states that, “proceedings for the
disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court
motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complaint of
any person”. While the Court of Appeals is not precluded by law from making such
referral, neither is the appellate court conferred the jurisdiction to take cognizance
of complaints for disbarment against lawyers (Pinewood Marine vs. Emco Plywood
Corporation, G.R. No. 179789, June 17, 2015). Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court clearly states that the authority to disbar a lawyer is exercised by the Supreme
Court.

However, Bar Matter No. 1645 promulgated in 2015 effectively amended Sections 1,
5, 12, 13 and 15 of Rule 139-B. On that regard, Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court has been amended as follows, “proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or
 discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or upon the
filing of a verified complaint of any person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP)”.

The amendment consolidated that the Supreme Court has the ultimate decision
about the course of action that may be taken in such disciplinary proceedings.
Whereas under the previous framework, it is only when the penalty is suspension or
disbarment that the matter would have to be elevated to the Supreme Court, the
new rules now may be taken, the matter must be decided by the High Court itself. As
for the role of the IBP in this regard, it would take on an investigatory and
recommendatory nature only.

XXVI. SYRINE JOY

I. When is deposition-taking done in a bar complaint proceeding?

Deposition-taking in bar complaint is done when there is a verified complaint

against a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Board of Governor
shall appoint Investigators from the IBP, or when special circumstances so warrant,
a panel of three investigators to investigate the complaint. 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 days from the date
of service as provided for in Section 5 of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court.

Section 9 of Rule 139 so provides that deposition may be taken in accordance

to the Rules of Court with leave of the investigators. Within the Philippines,
depositions may be taken before any member of the Board of Governors, the
President of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.

Deposition may be taken outside the Philippines before a diplomatic o

consular representative of the Philippine Government or before any person agreed
upon by the parties designated by the Board of Governors.

Any suitable members of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition
shall be taken may be designated by the Investigator to assist the complainant or the
respondent in taking a deposition.

II. Can a judge be elected/appointed as officer of the IBP?

The By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines provide that any
member of the bar in good moral standing may become an officer and, unless
otherwise provided in the By-Laws, no person who is not a member of the
Integrated Bar may become an officer. However, Section 13 of the same By-Laws
provides that the Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every activity
tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized
accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
 office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall
be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any
Chapter thereof. Hence, a judge cannot be an officer of the IBP for the reason of
holding judicial office in the government.

III. Does the Solicitor General have the power to investigate bar
complaints?

Yes. The Solicitor General may investigate in proceedings initiated by the

Supreme Court motu proprio when the interest of justice so requires as provided for
in Section 13 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court may designate
the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court
to investigate, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner
provided in Section 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation
shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.

XXVII. WINNIE

A. Does the respondent in a bar complaint proceeding required to be given a

counsel by the investigator?

No. According to Section 8 of Rule 139-B, The respondent shall be given full
opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by
himself and counsel.

B. Who are the lawyers disqualified from becoming IBP officers?

According to Section 13 of Rule 139-A, lawyers disqualified from becoming
IBP officers are those holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

C. Enumerate the MCLE-exempt lawyers and give specific names for each

The following members of the Bar are exempt from the MCLE requirement:
(a) The President and the Vice President of the Philippines, and the
Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executives Departments;
(b) Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
(c) The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent
and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of the Judicial and
Bar Council and incumbent court lawyers covered by the Philippine Judicial
Academy program of continuing judicial education;
(d) The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries
of the Department of Justice;
(e) The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
(f) The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government
Corporate Counsel;
(g) The Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
(h) The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy
Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
(i) Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
(j) Incumbent deans, bar reviews and professors of law who have teaching
experience for at least 10 years accredited law schools;
(k) The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors
and Professorial Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
(l) Governors and Mayors.
Other parties exempted from the MCLE
The following Members of the Bar are likewise exempt:
(a) Those who are not in law practice, private or public.
(b) Those who have retired from law practice with the approval of the IBP
Board of Governors.

President - Rodrigo Duterte.

Vice President - Leni Robredo
Secretary - Menardo Guevarra (DOJ)
Undersecretary - Adrian Ferdinand S. Sugay (DOJ)
Senator- Koko Pimentel
House of Representatives - Ibarra Gutierrez III
Chief Justice - Diosdado Peralta
Associate Justices - Marvic Leonen
Chief State Counsel- Ruben F. Fondevilla
Chief State Prosecutor - Benedicto A. Malcontento
Assistant Secretaries of the Department of Justice- Adonis P. Sulit
Solicitor General- Jose Calida
Assistant Solicitor General - Antonia Edita C. Dizon
Government Corporate Counsel- Elpidio J. Vega
Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel- Marilyn G. Estaris
Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions- Michael G.
Aguinaldo (Chairman, COA); Jose A. Fabia(member, COA)
Ombudsman- Samuel Reyes Martires
Overall Deputy Ombudsman- Edilberto G. Sandoval
Deputy Ombudsmen-  Cornelio L. Somido (Luzon)
Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman - Irenio M. Paldeng
Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions - John R.
Castriciones
The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professors and
Professorial Lectures of the Philippine Judicial Academy; - Adolfo S. Azcuna
(Chancellor); Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Vice-Chancellor); Ruben F.
Balane(Professorial Lecturer)
Governor - Francis Escudero (Governor of Sorsogon)
Mayor - Carlo Jose A. Martinez (Bogo City)
XXVIII.SYRINE
a. What are the allowed pleadings in a bar complaint proceeding?
With reference to Bar Matter No. 1755 and to the February 12, 2008 Resolution
amending Sec. 1, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP, the only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified
answer and verified position papers.
b. State atleast three (3) prohibited acts relative to election of IBP officers.
Pursuant to Article I Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws, the following acts and practices
relative to elections are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any
elective office in the IBP or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form
or manner, by himself or through another person: (1) Distribution, except on
election day, of election campaign materials; (2) Distribution, on election day, of
election campaign materials other than a statement of the biodata of the candidate
on not more than one page of a legal size sheet of paper; or causing the distribution
of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer
presiding at the elections; (3) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while
holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory office in the Government
or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof
c. State the conditions and procedure for a lawyer to be able to retire his
membership from the IBP.
The IBP members in good standing who have attained the age of seventy-five (75)
years old or who have been forty (40) years as lawyers, when they cannot anymore
engage in the practice of law by reason of their physical disability or judicially
adjudged mental incapacity, may be retired from the IBP upon verified petition to
the Board of Governors. The retired IBP members shall not practice law or be
required to pay dues (Article II Section 22 of the IBP By-Laws).

XXIX. JAMES