04/28/21
3. Where error by counsel is Purely
CANON 18
A lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01, Canon 18
A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should
know that he is not qualified to
render. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of
his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who
is competent on the matter.
RULE 18.02, CANON 18
A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate
preparation
RULE 18.03, CANON 18
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith
shall render him liable.(1998, 2002
Bar)
Q: Are the mistakes or negligence of
a lawyer binding upon the client?
(1998, 2000, 2002 Bar)
GR: Client is bound by attorney’s
conduct, negligence and mistake in
handling a case or in the management
of litigation and in procedural
technique, and he cannot complain
that the result might have been
different had his lawyer proceeded
differently.
XPNs: [LIPIG]
1. Lack of acquaintance with technical
aspect of procedure;
2. When adherence thereto results in
outright deprivation of client’s liberty
or property or where Interest of
justice so requires;
technical which does not substantially
affect client’s cause;
4. Ignorance, incompetence, or
inexperience of lawyer is so great and
error so serious that client, who has a
good cause, is prejudiced and denied a
day in court; and
5. Gross negligence of lawyer.
CASE: EQUIBAL VS FERRER
CASE: RAMOS VS NGASEO
SC: In the instant case, there was no
actual acquisition of the property in
litigation since the respondent only
made a written demand for its
delivery, which the complainant
refused to comply. Mere demand for
delivery of the litigated property does
not cause the transfer of ownership,
hence, not a prohibited transaction
within the contemplation of Article
1491.
CASE: SAMSON VS ERA
Atty. Era’s contention that the lawyer-
client relationship ended when
Samson and his group entered into the
compromise settlement with Sison
was unwarranted. The lawyer-client
relationship did not terminate as of
then, for the fact remained that he still
needed to oversee the implementation
of the settlement as well as to proceed
with the criminal cases until they
were dismissed or otherwise
concluded by the trial court. It is also
relevant to indicate that the execution
of a compromise settlement in the
criminal cases did not ipso facto cause
the termination of the cases not only
because the approval of the
compromise by the trial court was still
required, but also because the
compromise would have applied only
to the civil aspect, and excluded the
criminal aspect. Rule 15.03, Canon 15
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that: "A
lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of
all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts."
RULE 18.04, CANON 18
A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case
and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s
request for information.
CANON 19
A lawyer shall represent his client
with zeal within the bounds of the
law
RULE 19.01, CANON 9
A lawyer shall employ only fair and
honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not
present, participate in presenting or
threaten to present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to
obtain an improper advantage in
any case or proceeding. (1997 Bar)
CASE: PEÑA VS APARICIO
Under such Rule, a lawyer should not
file or threaten to file baseless
criminal cases against the adversaries
of his client to secure a leverage to
compel the adversaries to yield to the
claims of the lawyer’s client. This is
exactly what Atty. Aparicio did in this
case. Furthermore, his threats were
not only unethical, but they amounted
to blackmail – extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure in
the public prints. Blackmail and
extortion would not only entail
disbarment but also possible criminal
prosecution. Worse yet, Atty. Aparicio
actually admitted and even found it
his obligation to tell the truth of the
offenses he imputed against Peñ a. He
also stated that the writing of demand
letters is standard practice. SC ruled
that Atty. Aparicio’s assertions are
misleading because the fact of the
matter is, he used such threats to gain
leverage against Peñ a and force the
latter to accede to his client’s claims.
RULE 19.02, CANON 19
A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in
the course of the representation,
perpetrated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon
the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the
relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court
(2001 Bar)
RULE 19.03, CANON 19
A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling
the case
CASE: SALONGA
Extrinsic Fraud - Extrinsic fraud refers
to any fraudulent act of the prevailing
party which is committed outside the
trial of the case, whereby the defeated
party has been prevented from
exhibiting fully his side of the case, by
fraud or deception practised on him
by his opponent."10 Thus, it "refers to
some act or conduct of the prevailing
party which has prevented the
aggrieved party from having a trial or
presenting his case to the court, or
was used to procure judgment
without a fair submission of the
controversy.
Intrinsic Fraud - refers to acts of a
party at a trial which prevented a fair
and just determination of the case and
which could have been litigated and
determined at the trial or adjudication
of the case.”
DISBARMENT:
Characteristics of disbarment
proceedings
1. Sui Generis
2. The defense of “double jeopardy”
cannot be availed of in a disbarment
proceeding;
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by
the Supreme Court or IBP. It can be
initiated without a complaint;
4. It is imprescriptible;
5. Conducted confidentially;
6. It can proceed regardless of the
interest or the lack thereof on the part
of the complainant; and
7. It in itself constitutes due process of
law.
8. Whatever has been decided in a
disbarment case cannot be a source of
right that may be enforced in another
action;
9. In pari delicto rule not applicable;
10. No prejudicial question in
disbarment proceedings;
11. Penalty in a disbarment case
cannot be in the alternative; and
12. Monetary claims cannot be
granted except restitution and return
of monies and properties of the client
given in the course of the lawyer-
client relationship.
Purposes of disbarment
Disbarment is not meant as a
punishment to deprive an attorney of
a means of livelihood but rather
intended to:
1. To protect the public
2. To protect and preserve the legal
profession
3. To compel the lawyer to comply
with his duties and obligations under
the CPR.
Quantum of proof
The quantum of proof in
administrative cases against lawyers
is substantial evidence. Substantial
evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds,
equally reasonable, might conceivably
opine otherwise
CONFIDENTIALITY OF
DISBARMENT
Three-fold purpose of
confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings
1. To enable the court to make its
investigation free from extraneous
influence or interference;
2. To protect the personal and
professional reputation of attorneys
from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons
or clients by prohibiting publication of
such charges pending their final
resolution (Albano v. Coloma, A.C. No.
528, October 11, 1967);
3. To deter the press from publishing
charges or proceedings based thereon
for even a verbatim reproduction of
the complaint against an attorney in
the newspaper may be actionable.
PROCEDURE OF DISBARMENT:
Proceedings for disbarment,
suspension or discipline of attorneys
may be taken by the:
1. Supreme Court motu proprio; or
2. Upon the feeling of a verified
complaint of any person before the
Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines
WHERE TO FILE THE ADMIN CASE:
1. Any branch of the IBP
2. Main branch of the IBP
(Ortigas)
3. Supreme Court
 It is not mandatory for the
Supreme Court to adopt the
recommendation of the IBP
 It is mandatory for the IBP to
forward the case to the SC
Can a CA justice or RTC Judge suspend
a lawyer?
Yes, but they have to elevate such case
to the SC; the SC will either adopt or
reverse such decision
 ONLY the SC can disbar a
lawyer
Mitigating factors which may be
considered in decreasing the
degree of discipline to be imposed:
1. Good faith in the acquisition of a
property of the client subject of
litigation (In Re: Ruste, A.M. No. 632,
June 27, 1940);
2. Inexperience of the lawyer (Munoz
v. People, G.R. No. L-33672, September
28, 1973);
3. Age (Santos v. Tan, A.C. No. 2697,
April 19, 1991);
4. Apology (Munoz v. People, G.R. No.
L- 33672, September 28, 1973);
5. Lack of Intention to slight or offend
the Court (Rheem of the Philippines,
Inc. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, January
27, 1967);
6. Absence of prior disciplinary
record;
7. Absence of dishonest or selfish
motive;
8. Personal or emotional problems;
9. Timely good faith effort to make
restitution or to rectify consequences
of misconduct;
10. Full and free disclosure to
disciplinary board or cooperative
attitude toward the proceedings;
11. Character or reputation;
12. Physical or mental disability or
impairment;
13. Delay in disciplinary proceedings;
14. Interim rehabilitation;
15. Imposition of other penalties or
sanctions;
16. Remorse;
17. Remoteness of prior offenses (IBP
Guidelines 9.32).
IBP DUES:
 You have to pay from the
moment you pass the bar.
 Once a lawyer is disbard, you
are removed from the roll of
attorney.
Reinstatement and its
requirements
In disbarment proceedings,
reinstatement means the restoration
to a disbarred lawyer, the privilege to
practice law (Pineda, 2009).
Whether the applicant shall be
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys
rests to a great extent on the sound
discretion of the Court. The applicant
must, like a candidate for admission to
the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character, a fit
and proper person to practice law
(Narag vs. Narag, A.C. No. 3405, March
18, 2014).
NOTE: The power of the Supreme
Court to reinstate is based on its
constitutional prerogative to
promulgate rules on the admission of
applicants to the practice of law (Sec.
5[5], Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
SUPREME COURT’S GUIDELINES IN
REINSTATEMENT
1. The applicant’s character and
standing prior to the disbarment;
2. The nature and character of the
charge for which he was disbarred;
3. His conduct subsequent to the
disbarment, and the time that has
elapsed between the disbarment and
the application for reinstatement
(Prudential Bank v. Benjamin Grecia,
A.C. No. 2756, December 18, 1990);
4. His efficient government service (In
re: Adriatico, G.R. No. L-2532,
November 17, 1910);
5. Applicant’s appreciation of the
significance of his dereliction and his
assurance that he now possesses the
requisite probity and integrity; and
6. Favorable endorsement of the IBP
and pleas of his loved ones (Yap Tan v.
Sabandal, B.M. No. 144, February 24,
1989).
NOTE: Whether or not the applicant
shall be reinstated rests on the
discretion of the court (Prudential
Bank v. Benjamin Grecia, A.C. No. 2756,
December 18, 1990).
The court may require applicant for
reinstatement to enroll in and pass the
required fourth year review classes in
a recognized law school
Judgment of suspension of a Filipino
lawyer in a foreign court
The judgment of suspension against a
Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction
does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the
Philippines as the acts giving rise to his
suspension are not grounds for
disbarment and suspension in this
jurisdiction. Judgment of suspension
against a Filipino lawyer may
transmute into a similar judgment of
suspension in the Philippines only if the
basis of the foreign court's action
includes any of the grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this
jurisdiction (Velez v. De Vera, A.C. No.
6697, July 25, 2006).
NOTE: The judgment, resolution or
order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment
or suspension (Supreme Court
Resolution, February 13, 1992
amending Sec. 27, Rule 138, RRC).
The statutory enumeration is not to
be taken as a limitation on the
general power of Supreme Court to
suspend or disbar. HENCE, the
grounds enumerated are NOT
exclusive
 Decision of Foreign courts are
prima facie evidence
 If the judgment is from a
FOREIGN JURISDICTION,
before we can adopt, that
foreign judgment must fall
under the grounds provided
in section 27.
 However, for Philippine
cases, the grounds are not
exclusive. It will depend
upon the SC.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT

Specific grounds for suspension or
disbarment of a lawyer
1. Deceit;
2. Malpractice;
3. Grossly immoral conduct;
4. Conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude;
5. Violation of oath of office;
6. Willful disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court;
7. Corrupt or willful appearance as an
attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so (Sec. 27, Rule 138,
RRC);
8. Non-payment of IBP membership
dues
EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE PARDON
GRANTED BY THE PRESIDENT
If during the pendency of disbarment
proceeding the respondent was
granted executive pardon, the
dismissal of the case on that sole basis
will depend on whether the executive
pardon is absolute or conditional.
1. Absolute or unconditional pardon -
the disbarment case will be dismissed.
2. Conditional pardon - the disbarment
case will not be dismissed on the basis
thereof.
NOTE: To be reinstated, there is still a
need for the filing of an appropriate
petition with the Supreme Court
ABSOLUTE PARDON EFFECTS
1. Where the disbarment
proceeding are founded and
rest alone upon the statute
making the fact of conviction as
a ground for disbarment then
absolute pardon for the offense
is a bar for the disbarment
proceeding.
Alternate: Where disbarment
proceeding are founded and rest alone
upon a statute making fact of
conviction as a ground for disbarment,
absolute pardon for the offense is a
bar to disbarment
ex. Charge with homicide, not about
professional – then given absolute
pardon will extend to ethical
consequences
2. Where the disbarment
proceeding are base upon the
professional misconduct of a
lawyer which culminated in the
criminal prosecution and
conviction, absolute pardon
will erase only the penal
consequences, but will not
erase relieve the lawyer of the
ethical consequences.
AMNESTY
From GN:
An absolute pardon by the President
is one that operates to wipe out the
conviction and the offense itself. The
grant thereof to a lawyer is a bar to a
proceeding for disbarment against
him, if such proceeding is based solely
on the fact of such conviction (In re:
Parcasio, A.C. No. 100, February. 18,
1976).
But where the proceeding to disbar is
founded on the professional
misconduct involved in the
transaction which culminated in his
conviction, the effect of the pardon is
only to relieve him of the penal
consequences of his act and does not
operate as a bar to the disbarment
proceeding, inasmuch as the criminal
acts may nevertheless constitute proof
that the attorney does not possess
good moral character
Next meeting:
Canon 20 to 22
Notarial Practice
Mercedita De jesus v. Atty. Juvy Mell
Sanchez-Malit, A.C. No. 6470, July 8,
2014
Amdona v. Cefra, AC, No. 5482:
February 10, 2015
Spouses Ray and Marcelina Zialcita v.
Atty. Allan Latras
Pineda v. De Jesus, 499 scra 608

Reparations Commission v. Visayan

Packing Corporation, 193 scra 540

People vs Juco

Uy chico v. Union Life Assurance

Society

Rinconada Tekephone Co., Inc. v.

Buenviaje