AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF LAW

The authority of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law, which includes the authority
to regulate the admission to the practice of law and the authority to discipline lawyers, is stated in
the 1987 constitution. Section 5 (5) of article 8 of the said constitution provides:

“The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

xxx
5) promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. xxx”

Membership in the bar being merely a privilege, the same may be suspended or removed from
the lawyer for reasons provided in the rules, law and jurisprudence. The actuations of lawyers are
subject to scrutiny at all times. The professional activities as well as the lawyer’s private lives,
insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession
and the courts, may at anytime be the subject of inquiry by the proper authorities (People v.
Andan, May 17, 1949).

UNLIMITED GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private
activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the
practice of law but also a good qualification for all members of the bar. (Manaois v. Deciembre,
A.M. Case No. 5564, August 20, 2008)

SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS

DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS

1. NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST LAWYERS

SUI GENERIS

A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is in reality an investigation by the court into the
misconduct of its officer or an examination into his character (In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562,
G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970).

A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest

of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the
record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is
premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer
is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. (Loberes-Pintal vs. Baylosis, A.C. No. 11545 [Formerly CBD Case No. 12-
3439], January 24, 2017).
 It is not a criminal prosecution as the proceedings are not meant as a punishment depriving
him a source of livelihood but is rather that those who exercise this function should be
competent, honorable and reliable in order that courts and the public may rightly repose
confidence in them (Ong vs. Unto, Adm. Case no. 2417, February 6, 2002).

Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less
severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as
it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the
erring person (Atty. Ricardo Salomon, Jr. V. Atty. Joselito C. Frial, A.C. No. 7820, September
12, 2008).

Thus, the Court ruled that the filing of a disciplinary complaint does not prescribe, regardless
of the number of years that lapsed (Heirs of Lydio Falame v. Baguio, A.C. No. 6876, March 7,
2008).

DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS WHICH CAN BE IMPOSED ON A LAWYER IN CASE OF

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

a. Disbarment;
b. Suspension;
c. Interim Suspension;
d. Reprimand;
e. Admonition;
f. Probation
g. Other sanctions and remedies:
i. Restitution;
ii. Assessment of costs;
iii. Limitation upon practice;
iv. Appointment of a receiver;
v. Requirement that the lawyer take the bar examination or professional responsibility
examination;
vi. Requirement that the lawyer attend continuing education courses;
vii. Other requirements that the state’s highest court or disciplinary board deems
consistent with purposes of lawyer sanctions; and

h. Reciprocal Discipline (IBP Commission on Bar Discipline Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions).

2. GROUNDS

The grounds for disbarment or suspension under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court are the
following:

1. Deceit;
2. Malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office;
3. Gross immoral conduct;
4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Violation of oath of office;
6. Willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court;
7. Corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so;
and
8. Disbarment in foreign jurisdiction.

ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENT OF THE CRIMINAL CHARGE IS NOT A BAR TO

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.

The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a bar to these [administrative]
proceedings. The standards of legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables
one to escape the penalties of x x x criminal law. Moreover, this Court, in disbarment proceedings
is acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal case.
(Joselano Guevara v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007)

MISCONDUCT PERTAINING TO ANOTHER PROFESSION

Respondent is a CPA-lawyer who is actively practicing both professions. He is the senior partner
of his law and accounting firms which carry his name. He is charged for allowing his accounting
firm to represent two creditors of the estate and, at the same time, allowing his law firm to
represent the estate in the proceedings where these claims were presented. Respondent
advances the defense that assuming there was conflict of interest, he could not be charged before
this Court as his alleged “misconduct” pertains to his accounting practice. Even granting that
respondent’s misconduct refers to his accountancy practice, it would not prevent this Court from
disciplining him as a member of the Bar. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or
disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. (Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C. No.
2040 [1998])

KISSING COMPLAINANT ON THE LIPS NOT GROSSLY IMMORAL

Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the lips, the same was not
motivated by malice. We come to this conclusion because right after the complainant expressed
her annoyance at being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message,
respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text
message. The exchange of text messages between complainant and respondent bears this out.
Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the
vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent
truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or a
more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same. All told, as shown by the above
circumstances, respondent’s acts are not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant
disbarment or suspension. (Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204
[2007]).

IDENTITY THEFT

The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent may later on complete his college
education and earn a law degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of his
brother's name, identity, and educational records renders him unfit for admission to the Bar. The
practice of law, after all, is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone
who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. (Patrick A.
Caronan v. Richard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016)

SC DISBARS LAWYER FOR FALSIFYING CA RULING ACQUITTING DRUG SUSPECT

(MARCH 5, 2019)

The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a lawyer for falsifying a court of appeals decision
acquitting a drug suspect.

Atty. Marie Frances E. Ramon was found guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath, Canons 1, 7, 10;
and Rules 1.01, 1.02, 7.03, 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and Grave Misconduct.

The CA justices accused Ramon of representing herself as a lawyer who can influence appellate
court justices to secure an acquittal of an accused, defrauding the relatives of an accused to
amass a large amount of money, and committing the crimes of estafa and falsification.

Based on the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission and the
recommendation of the IBP Board, which was adopted by the Court, Ramon lured Maria Rossan
De Jesus into giving her a huge sum of money by promising to secure the acquittal of her cousin
Tirso Fajardo.

Ramon, according to the investigation, duped her clients by drafting a sham decision regarding
the purported acquittal of Fajardo and placed the names of the CA justices in the fake decision
although the case was assigned in a different division and assigned to a different CA justice.

QUANTUM OF PROOF

In disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar, only clear preponderance of evidence
is required to establish liability. As long as the evidence presented by complainant or that taken
judicial notice of by the Court is more convincing and worthy of belief than that which is offered in
opposition thereto, the imposition of disciplinary sanction is justified (Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. v.
Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, A.C. No. 4680, August 29, 2000).

3. PROCEEDINGS

HOW PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED

(a) Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Supreme Court motu propio; or
(b) Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person
(c) IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a
Chapter Board of Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper
charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service (Sec. 1, Rule 139-
B, RRC).
In BAR MATTER N0. 1645 (RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B), dated October 13, 2015, the
Supreme Court issued new rules governing administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers.

The new rules under Bar Matter 1645 are as follows:

Sections 1, 5, 12, 13, and 15 of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court are amended to read as follows:

“RULE 139-B Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Section 1. How Instituted. - 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 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 IBP shall forward to the Supreme Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for
disbarment, suspension and discipline filed against incumbent Justices of the Court of Appeals,
Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and judges of lower courts, or against lawyers in the
government service, whether or not they are charged singly or jointly with other respondents, and
whether or not such complaint deals with acts unrelated to the discharge of their official functions.
If the complaint is filed before the IBP, six ( 6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with
the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the
same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.”

A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

“Section 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 Investigator will recommend to the Board of Governors
the dismissal of the complaint.

Thereafter, the procedure in Section 12 of this Rule shall apply. No investigation shall be
interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the
Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines
that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings
against the respondent.”

(Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter No. 356)
“Section 12. Review and recommendation by the Board of Governors.

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.

b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend
to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against
the respondent.

The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and
distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based.

The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting
of the Board following the submission of the Investigator's report.

c) The Board's resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and
submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten (10) days from
issuance of the resolution.

d) Notice of the resolution of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.”

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

“Section 13. Investigation of complaints. - In proceedings initiated 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 Office of the Bar Confidant, 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.

The complaint may also be referred to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation.”

C. COMMON PROVISIONS

“Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court. - After receipt of respondent's answer or
lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu propio, or upon the recommendation of the
IBP Board of Governors, 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.”

KINDS OF CONTEMPT

1. Direct Contempt – consists of misbehavior in the presence of or near a court or judge as to

interrupt or obstruct the proceedings before the court or the administration of justice
2. Indirect or Constructive Contempt – one committed away from the court involving
disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of the
court, tending to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court
3. Civil Contempt – failure to do something ordered by the court which is for the benefit of the
party
4. Criminal contempt – consists of any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the
court

DISCIPLINE OF FILIPINO LAWYERS PRACTICING ABROAD

Note: The rule is that a Philippine lawyer may practice law only in the country. He may, however,
be admitted to the bar in a foreign country, where he practice law in both countries. If he commits
misconduct outside Philippine jurisdiction, which is also ground for disciplinary action under
Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in this country.

Whether a Philippine lawyer who is also a member of the bar in a foreign country can be
disciplined as lawyer in the Philippines for misconduct committed in the foreign country, even if
the has not rendered a final judgment disciplining even if the foreign Country has not rendered a
final judgment disciplining Him as lawyer therein. xxx The disbarment or suspension of a member
of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in foreign jurisdiction where
he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis
of such action includes any of the acts, The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment of suspension.
(Velez v. de Vera, A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006)

RULES ON REINSTATEMENT

READMISSION TO THE BAR

NATURE OF REINSTATEMENT

The sole object of the Court upon an application for reinstatement to practice, by one previously
disbarred, is to determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by
positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been
successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an
office of trust. (In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu City. A.C. No.
270 March 29, 1974)

Reinstatement means the readmission to membership in the Bar and the restoration to a
disbarred lawyer the privilege to practice law (Pineda, Legal Ethics Annotated, p. 443).

The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended
lawyer to the office of attorney-at-law (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2009 ed, p. 593).

LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED

Guidelines for the lifting an order of suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law.

(a) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court
shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
(b) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory upon receipt
thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration. The denial
of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;
(c) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn Statement with
the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she desisted from
the practice of x`law and he has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her
suspension;
(d) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the
Executive Judge of the courts, where the respondent has pending cases handled by him or
her, and/or where he or she has appeared as counsel;
(e) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order
of suspension; and
(f) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under oath shall be a
ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted
(Ligaya Maniago, v. Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010).

Q: DOES THE COURT HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION?

A: It is obvious that if we have authority to completely exclude a person from the practice of law,
there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which is lesser in degree and effect, can be
regarded as falling outside of the compass of that authority. The merit of this choice is best
shown by the fact that it will then be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for himself how long or
how short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension becomes effective
he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law (In re Almacen,
G.R. No. L-27654, February 19, 1970).

LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISBARRED

A disbarred lawyer may be reinstated upon determination whether the applicant has satisfied and
convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of
his character has been successful and, therefore, he is entitled to be readmitted to a profession
which is intrinsically an office of trust. (In re Rusiana, A.C. No. 270, March 29, 1974)

CRITERIA FOR REINSTATEMENT

1. Appreciation of the significance of his dereliction;

2. Assurance to the court that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to
guarantee his worthiness to be restored to the practice of law;
3. Time elapsed between disbarment and application for reinstatement;
4. Good conduct and honorable dealing subsequent to his disbarment;
5. Active involvement in civic, educational and religious organizations; and
6. Favorable indorsement of IBP as well as local government officials and citizens of his
community.

TO ENSURE COMPETENCE AFTER REINSTATEMENT

xxx in view of the numerous changes in the law since 1959, respondent movant should offer some
guarantee of his ability to render adequate service to his prospective clients; the Court resolved
that respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana be, as he is hereby required, to enroll in, and pass,
regular fourth year review classes in a recognized law school (in order to update with the
current laws and jurisprudence). (In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana
of Cebu City. A.C. No. 270 March 29, 1974)
EFFECTS OF A LAWYER’S READMISSION

1. Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law;

2. Lawyer shall be subject to the same law, rules and regulations as those applicable to any other
lawyer;
3. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission (Agpalo, Legal and
Judicial Ethics, 2009 ed., p. 596); and
4. Compliance to the conditions will restore a lawyer’s good standing as a member of the
Philippine Bar (Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No.
1678, December 17, 2007).

LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN REPATRIATED

General Rule: The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens
pursuant to Section 14, Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution. Hence, the loss of Philippine
citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.

Exception: Pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A. 9225), a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with R.A. 9225.

Thus, if a Filipino is naturalized as a citizen of another country and subsequently reacquires his
Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225, he is deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine Bar. (Funa, Legal and Judicial Ethics: With Bar Examination
Questions, 2009, p. 385)

Note: The right of such lawyer to practice law does not automatically accrue. Pursuant to
abovementioned Act, those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply
with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. (Sec. 5[4], R.A. 9225)