Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2021-2022

WARNING
Unauthorized reproduction or claim of ownership of this original [derivative] work by any person amounts
to copyright infringement.

Misconduct in non-professional or private capacity

The general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may not ordinarily
assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or private capacity, where,
however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him
morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and the law confer on him, the
court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney.“ – Barrios v. Atty.
Martinez, A.C. NO. 4585 : November 12, 2004

Contempt v. Disciplinary Proceeding

While the two proceedings can proceed simultaneously with each other, a contempt proceeding cannot
substitute for a disciplinary proceeding for erring lawyers, and vice versa.

There can be no substitution between the two proceedings, as contempt proceedings against lawyers, as
officers of the Court, are different in nature and purpose from the discipline of lawyers as legal
professionals.

……
The two proceedings spring from two different powers of the Court. The Court, in exercising its power of
contempt, exercises an implied and inherent power granted to courts in general.

Its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings; to the enforcement of
judgments, orders and mandates of courts; and, consequently, in the administration of justice; thus, it may
be instituted against any person guilty of acts that constitute contempt of court.
……
Further, jurisprudence describes a contempt proceeding as penal and summary in nature; hence, legal
principles applicable to criminal proceedings also apply to contempt proceedings.

A judgment dismissing the charge of contempt, for instance, may no longer be appealed in the same
manner that the prohibition against double jeopardy bars the appeal of an accused’s acquittal.

……
In contrast, a disciplinary proceeding against an erring lawyer is sui generis in nature; it is neither purely
civil nor purely criminal.

Unlike a criminal prosecution, a disciplinary proceeding is not intended to inflict punishment, but to
determine whether a lawyer is still fit to be allowed the privilege of practicing law.

It involves an investigation by the Court of the conduct of its officers, and has, for its primary objective,
public interest.

…..
Thus, unlike a contempt proceeding, the acquittal of the lawyer from a disciplinary proceeding cannot bar
an interested party from seeking reconsideration of the ruling.

1
Neither does the imposition of a penalty for contempt operate as res judicata to a subsequent charge for
unprofessional conduct.
Contempt proceedings and disciplinary actions are also governed by different procedures. Contempt of
court is governed by the procedures under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in the
practice of law are governed by Rules 138 and 139 thereof.
- Re: Verified complaint of Thomas S. Merdegia; IPI No. 12-205-CA-J & A.C. No.: 10300, December 10,
2013

Contempt and Disciplinary action

The basic rule here is that the power to punish for contempt and the power to disbar are separate and
distinct, and that the exercise of one does not exclude the exercise of the other.
A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the
other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court's officer to
continue in that office, to preserve and protect the court and the public from the official ministrations of
persons unfit or unworthy to hold such office.
The principal purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the
court and should thus be used sparingly on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The
principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for
orders of such court by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of
justice.

…….
Moreover, it has been held that the imposition a fine as a penalty in a contempt proceeding is not
considered res judicata to a subsequent charge for unprofessional conduct. In the same manner an
attorney's conviction for contempt was not collaterally estopped by reason of a subsequent disbarment
proceeding in which the court found in his favor on essentially the same facts leading to conviction. It has
likewise been the rule that a notice to a lawyer to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt
cannot be considered as a notice to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law,
considering that they have distinct objects and for each of them a different procedure is established.

……..
Contempt of court is governed by the procedures laid down under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas
disciplinary actions in the Practice of law are governed by file 138 and 139 thereof.
Although apparently different in legal bases, the authority to punish for contempt and to discipline lawyers
are both inherent in the Supreme Court and are equally incidents of the court's basic power to oversee the
proper administration of justice and the orderly discharge of judicial functions.

…….
There are, in other words, two (2) related powers which come into play in cases like that before us here: the
Court's inherent power to discipline attorneys and the contempt power.
The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is broader than the power to punish for
contempt. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and non-lawyers, both in and out of court.
Frequently, where the contemptnor is a lawyer, the contumacious conduct also constitutes professional
misconduct which calls into play the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court.

…….
Where the respondent is a lawyer, however, the Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over lawyers may
come into play whether or not the misconduct with which the respondent is charged also constitutes
contempt of court. The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary
authority of the Court over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but
corollary to the court's exclusive power of admission to the bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional but
also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibilities of
dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct,

2
pervert, or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct
calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting
application of the contempt power. – PP v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09 March 29, 1995

Differences between a civil malpractice action and a disciplinary proceeding

There are several significant differences between a civil malpractice action and a disciplinary
proceeding:
First, a lawyer may be disciplined even if the misconduct does not cause any damage. The rationale is the
need for protection of the public and the integrity of the profession.
Second, although the severity of the breach may affect the nature of the discipline, the prophylactic purpose
of the ethical rules may result in a sanction even if the conduct would not otherwise constitute a civil
wrong.
Third, even if the injured party initiates a disciplinary complaint, that individual is not a party to the
proceeding. These differences often mean that a rule promulgated for discipline is inappropriate as a
principle of law or standard for defining proper civil conduct. – Hizey v. Carpenter, et. al., 830 P.2d 646, 1992

Doctrine of restraint
Notably, Medina echoes a line of case law stating that when a resolution of an administrative
disciplinary case against a lawyer would necessarily delve into issues which are proper subjects of
judicial action, it is prudent for the Court to dismiss the administrative case without prejudice to the
filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of the judicial action.
However, during the deliberations of this case, it was ruminated that the above-described doctrine of
restraint as pronounced in the Medina, et al. rulings unduly fetters - and in fact, diminishes - the Court's
exclusive and plenary power to discipline members of the Bar. In addition, it was highlighted that said
rulings run counter to the overwhelming body of jurisprudence which consistently holds that
administrative cases for the discipline of lawyers may proceed independently from civil and/or
criminal cases despite involving the same set of facts and circumstances.

……..
After a careful consideration of these conflicting rulings, the Court has now decided to abandon Medina
and other cases wherein a similar doctrine of restraint was espoused. As will be discussed below, the
Court is not precluded from examining respondent's actuations in this administrative case if only to
determine his fitness to remain as a member of the Bar. This is regardless of the fact that this
administrative case involves similar or overlapping factual circumstances with a separate civil case.

…….
Verily, the independency of criminal, civil, and administrative cases from one another – irrespective of the
similarity or overlap of facts – stems from the basic and fundamental differences of these types of
proceedings in terms of purpose, parties-litigants involved, and evidentiary thresholds. These key
foundational distinctions constitute the rationale as to why a disposition in one case would not affect the
other. To briefly recount:

(1) As to purpose, criminal actions are instituted to determine the penal liability of the accused for having
outraged the State with his/her crime; civil actions are for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong; while administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers are instituted in
order to determine whether or not the lawyer concerned is still fit to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.

…….
(2) As to the party-litigants involved, criminal actions are instituted in the name of the State, i.e., People of
the Philippines, against the accused, and the private complainant, if any, is regarded merely as a witness for

3
the State; in civil actions, the parties are the plaintiff, or the person/entity who seeks to have his right/s
protected/enforced, and the defendant is the one alleged to have trampled upon the plaintiffs right/s; in
administrative proceedings against lawyers, there is no private interest involved and there is likewise no
redress for private grievance as it is undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of person unfit to practice law, and the
complainant is also deemed as a mere witness.41

…………
(3) As to evidentiary thresholds, criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt; civil actions
necessitate the lower threshold of preponderance of evidence; and administrative disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers need only substantial evidence.

Again, owing to these basic and fundamental differences, a finding in one type of case should have
no binding determinative effect in the disposition of another. This is because a civil, criminal or
administrative proceeding must be adjudged according to the case type's own peculiar and distinct
parameters. Accordingly, the dissent's fear that the findings in an administrative case would undermine the
findings made in a separate civil or criminal case involving related facts is a mere impression that is more
notional than conceptual. - Felipe D. Laurel v. Reymelio M. Delute, A.C. No. 12298, September 01, 2020

Supreme Court is neither bound by the findings of the IBP

Respondent must 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 because as the Tribunal which has the final say on the proper
sanctions to be imposed on errant members of both bench and bar, 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. – Dumadag v.
Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614. June 29, 2000

Continuous display and use of the title “Attorney-at-law” after disbarment

Complainant claims that respondent misrepresented himself as an "Atty." in the wedding invitation of his
son, and a signboard hanging outside the respondent's office display the title "Attorney-at-Law“ under
respondent's name.
Lastly, complainant informs the Court that she had received reports that respondent continues in the
practice of law by making other lawyers sign the pleadings that he prepares for cases involving his
clients. – Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Enrique S. Chua) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Resolution
On this matter, the Court is of the view that the title "Atty." preceding respondent's name in his son's
wedding invitation, and the signboard outside his office bearing his name and the words "Attorney-at-Law"
are not evidence sufficient to convince this Court that respondent continues in the practice of law,
in violation Court's Decision dated April 30, 1999 that ordered his disbarment.
Neither is the Court swayed by the complainant's allegations of respondent's continuous practice of law
based on mere "reports." Without more, these reports are pure hearsay and are without evidentiary value.
Nonetheless, respondent is hereby ORDERED to remove the signboard outside his office showing his name
and the words "Attorney-at-Law.“ - Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Enrique S. Chua)
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Guidelines to be observed in the matter of the lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from the
practice of law
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice of law, the Court shall render
a decision imposing the penalty;

4
2) 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 thereof.
The denial of said motion shall render the decision final and executory;

3) 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 has desisted from the practice
of law and has not appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;

Cont…
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive
Judge of the courts where respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or
she has appeared as counsel;

5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondent’s compliance with the order of
suspension;

6) 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. - Maniago v. Atty. De
Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

Lifting of a lawyer’s suspension

is not automatic
The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the Court’s
decision, and an order from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order
to enable [him] to resume the practice of his profession. – Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March
30, 2010

Supreme Court can choose not to refer complaint to IBP

In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Administrative
complaints that are prima facie groundless as shown by the pleadings filed by the parties need not be
referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further investigation. They may be summarily dismissed
for utter lack of merit.
The Court normally refers administrative cases to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. Considering, however, that the question being raised is
simple and that no further factual determination is necessary, the Court resolves to dispense with
such referral and to decide the case on the basis of the extensive pleadings already on record, which all
show the lack of merit of the Complaint. - Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, A.C. No. 4700 [2000]
Confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings
Rules of Court Rule 139-B Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - 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.

Rules of Court Rule 140 SEC. 12. Confidentiality of proceedings. – Proceedings against Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential,
but a copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the
Office of the Court Administrator. - A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF
THE RULES OF COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES [took effect on October 1, 2001]

Three-fold purpose of confidentiality rule

The confidential nature of the proceedings has a three-fold purpose, to wit:
(i) to enable the court and the investigator to make the investigation free from any extraneous influence or
interference;

5
(ii) to protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting the publication of such charges pending
their resolution; and
(iii) to deter the press from publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon.

The case of reporting pending final resolution

On December 14, 2012, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) issued a
Resolution in CBD Case No. 09-2498, recommending the penalty of suspension of herein petitioner Atty.
Raymund P. Palad. 1 Palad received a copy of the Resolution on March 8, 2013, and filed his Motion for
Reconsideration.
Petitioner averred that around 6:30 in the morning on April 23, 2013, he received a text message from his
fellow lawyer friends informing him that the latter read in an article in Filipino Star Ngayon that petitioner
was already suspended from the practice of law for one ( l) year ..

……..
The article was written by respondent Solis in her column "Take it, Take it” which was also published on the
tabloid's website. An excerpt of the article reads:

“Dahil sa paglabag sa code of professional responsibility

ABOGADO NI KATRINA HALILI SUSPENDIDO NG ISANG TAON!
May balita kasi na nakarating sa Startalk na suspendido si Atty.
Palad sa practice of law dahil lumabag siya sa code of professional responsibility ng mga lawyer.
Diumano, isang taon ang suspension ni Atty. Palad dahil sa mga salita na binitawan niya laban sa Belo
Medical Clinic.”

………
Petitioner also alleged that respondent Lo broached the same topic in his column Funfare in The Philippine
Star on April 23, 2013, thus:
“Could it be true that the lawyer Raymund Palad, the counsel of Katrina Halili (in the case she filed
against Hayden Kho who was cleared by the court), was suspended from the practice of law because
of several actions that were deemed inconsistent with the lawyers' code of professional
responsibility…”

Petitioner avowed that respondents clearly violated the confidentiality rule in proceedings against
attorneys as provided by Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court when they disclosed the pending
administrative case to the public…

Not a restriction on the freedom of the press

It is settled that Section 18, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court is not a restriction on the freedom of
the press. As long as there is a legitimate public interest, the media is not prohibited from making a fair,
true, and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint. However, in the absence of a legitimate public
interest in a disbarment complaint, members of the media must preserve the confidentiality of disbarment
proceedings during its pendency.
A person, even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, could validly be the subject of a
public comment as long as he was involved in a public issue. Petitioner has become a public figure
because he is representing a public concern.

Extensive media exposure converts a private figure to a public figure

Petitioner inevitably became an overnight celebrity lawyer due to his extensive media exposure in
defending his client.
A person, even if he was not a public official or at least a public figure, could validly be the subject of a
public comment as long as he was involved in a public issue. Petitioner has become a public figure because
he is representing a public concern. – Atty. Palad v. Solis, Asis, et. al. G.R. No. 206691 October 03, 2016

6
Public interest
Public interest is something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or
some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected; it does not mean anything so
narrow as mere curiosity, or as the interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the
matters in question.- Atty. Palad v. Solis, Asis, et. al. G.R. No. 206691 October 03, 2016

……..
Since petitioner has become a public figure for being involved in a public issue, and because the event itself
that led to the filing of the disciplinary case against petitioner is a matter of public interest, the media has
the right to report the disciplinary case as legitimate news. The legitimate media has a right to publish such
fact under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. Respondents merely reported on the
alleged penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a year against petitioner, and the supposed
grounds relied upon. .- Atty. Palad v. Solis, Asis, et. al. G.R. No. 206691 October 03, 2016

Suspension of attorney by CA and RTC

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

Rule 139-B 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 a full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar
the attorney as the facts may warrant.

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by Supreme Court Resolution dated
February 13, 1992
Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor.—A member of the
bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for:
1. any deceit,
2. malpractice,
3. other gross misconduct in such office,
4. grossly immoral conduct,
5. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
6. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice,
7. for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or
brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Disbarment or suspension in a foreign jurisdiction

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary
agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground for his
disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove
enumerated [Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court]. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25,
2006

Judgment of a foreign court is only prima facie evidence

The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar by a competent court or other
disciplinatory agency in a foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a ground
for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove
enumerated.

7
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie
evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793 [2004]

The basis of the foreign court's action must include any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction I
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court's judgment ordering Maquera's suspension from the
practice of law in Guam does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
Under Section 27,34 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the acts which led to his suspension in Guam
are mere grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the basis of the
foreign court's action includes any of the grounds for disbarment or suspension in this
jurisdiction. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793 [2004]

The basis of the foreign court's action must include any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction II
In Maquera, we emphasized that 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. We likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697
July 25, 2006

Defenses
The Maquera ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules of Court which provides:
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a
foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
xxxx
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.
6697 July 25, 2006

Ex parte investigation valid

Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only constitutes prima facie evidence of
Maquera's unethical acts as a lawyer. More fundamentally, due process demands that he be given the
opportunity to defend himself and to present testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an
investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule
mandates that a respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges against him. It is only after
reasonable notice and failure on the part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the scheduled
investigation that an investigation may be conducted ex parte. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793
[2004]

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

8
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]

Respondent lawyer cannot hide behind the corporate veil

This Court holds that respondent cannot invoke the separate personality of the corporation to
absolve him from exercising these duties over the properties turned over to him by complainant. He
blatantly used the corporate veil to defeat his fiduciary obligation to his client, the complainant.
Toleration of such fraudulent conduct was never the reason for the creation of said corporate fiction. -
Cordon v. Atty. Balicante, A.C. No. 2797 October 4, 2002

Judgment from the RTC not needed in IBP investigation

The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not respondent did contract a bigamous
marriage, a matter which apparently is still pending with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. It is
enough that the records of this administrative case sufficiently substantiate the findings of the
Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has
been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an
extremely low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him
regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges which his license confers upon him.
- Tucay v. Atty. Tucay, A.C. No. 5170 [1999]

Violation of BP 22 not subject to sanction yet

Consequently, he filed this complaint for disbarment, praying also that an administrative sanction be meted
against respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check.
Prefatorily, we stress that we shall not delve into the merits of the various criminal and civil cases pending
between the parties. It is for the trial courts handling these cases to ascertain the truth or falsity of the
allegations made therein. For this reason, it is not for us to sanction respondent for his issuance of a
bouncing check. His liability has yet to be determined by the trial court where his case is pending. –
Genato v. Atty. Silapan, A.C. No. 4078. July 14, 2003

Issuing a check without sufficient funds

Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same
constitutes such willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and
lawyers. And while "the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred, and the court may
not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him for misconduct in his non-professional or private
capacity, where, however, the misconduct outside of the lawyer's professional dealings is so gross a
character as to show him morally unfit for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his licenses and
the law confer on him, the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the office of
attorney.“ – Barrios v. Atty. Martinez, A.C. NO. 4585 : November 12, 2004

Marrying in good faith a married lawyer not immoral

All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing
her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with
what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes
conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
"grossly immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled
as to be reprehensible to a high degree. - Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000

Anonymous complaints
Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution. They should not be dismissed outright,
however, where their averments may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated
and established by other competent evidence. - Sinsuat and Paps v. Judge Hidalgo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2133,
August 6, 2008

9
Forum shopping
Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to disbarment proceedings. - Quirino
Tomlin II v. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006

A finding of grave misconduct in the ADMINISTRATIVE CASE would not be determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the respondent in a criminal proceeding

The issue in the FALSIFICATION CASE is whether or not the SHERIFFS had unlawfully and feloniously
made an alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning in violation of
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. – Dinsay v. Cioco and Atty. Belleza, A.M. No. R-252-P December 12,
1986

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

Administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe

Indeed, we have held that an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe. -
Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Renato L. Gonzalez, A.C. no. 6634, August 23, 2007

Indefinite suspension
This, we are empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter but also
because, even without the comforting support of precedent, 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 [respondent] 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: Atty Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970

………………….
The indefiniteness of respondent’s suspension, far from being "cruel" or "degrading" or "inhuman" has the
effect of placing, as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own
hands. That sanction has the effect of giving respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time
of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance
and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct rightly
demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the courts.
Xxx the indefiniteness of respondent’s suspension puts in his hands the key for the restoration of his
rights and privileges as a lawyer. - Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614. June 29, 2000

Censure or reprimand
Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an isolated act of misconduct of a lesser nature. It is also
imposed for some minor infraction of the lawyer’s duty to the court or the client. - Cynthia Advincula v.
Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 [2007]

Kissing complainant on the lips not grossly immoral

10
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]

Non-injured party can file a complaint

The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the
person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters
of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charge. The
evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its
resolution and recommended sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30,
1998

Alternative penalty not allowed

A note and advice on the penalty imposed in the resolution is in order. The dispositive portion thereof
provides that:

x x x Respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years
and is hereby directed to return the Fifty Thousand Pesos he received from the petitioner within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of this resolution. Failure on his part to comply will result (i)n his DISBARMENT.
In other words, it effectively purports to impose either a 3-year suspension or disbarment, depending on
whether or not respondent duly returns the amount to complainant. Viewed from another angle, it directs
that he shall only be suspended, subject to the condition that he should make restitution as
prescribed therein. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998]

Cont…
Dispositions of this nature should be avoided. In the imposition of penalties in criminal cases, it has long
been the rule that the penalty imposed in a judgment cannot be in the alternative, even if the law provides
for alternative penalties, not can such penalty be subject to a condition. There is no reason why such
legal principles in penal law should not apply in administrative disciplinary actions which, as in this case,
also involve punitive sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998

Misconduct as a government official

As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the
bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if that
misconduct as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or
to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such ground. – Dinsay
v. Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995. Noveernment officialmber 27, 1996

Res judicata does not apply in administrative proceeding

“The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the
exercise of the [Court’s] administrative powers.”- Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995. November 27, 1996

11
While respondent is in effect being indicted twice for the same misconduct, it does not amount to
double jeopardy as both proceedings are admittedly administrative in nature. - Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, A.C.
No. 2995. November 27, 1996

Definition of Unprofessional conduct

Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the rules on ethical code of his profession or
which is unbecoming a member of that profession. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006
Definition of Unbecoming conduct
Unbecoming conduct “applies to a broader range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but
of ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed method.”- ASP Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justice Ong, et.
al.,A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J April 12, 2011

Indirect contempt does not involve moral turpitude

The act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does not involve moral turpitude.
In this case, it cannot be said that the act of expressing one’s opinion on a public interest issue can be
considered as an act of baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring suffering nor
cause undue injury or harm to the public when he voiced his views on the Plunder Law. Consequently,
there is no basis for petitioner to invoke the administrative case as evidence of respondent De Vera’s alleged
immorality. - In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

No final judgment yet

On the administrative complaint that was filed against respondent De Vera while he was still practicing law
in California, he explained that no final judgment was rendered by the California Supreme Court
finding him guilty of the charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination he suffered at
the hands of the investigator and he found it impractical to pursue the case to the end.
We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of contrary proof. It is a basic rule on evidence
that he who alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same. In this case, the petitioners have not shown
how the administrative complaint affects respondent De Vera’s moral fitness to run for governor. – In re:
Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

Sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults

Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and consenting adults are not enough to warrant
administrative sanction for illicit behavior. The Court has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy
between a man and a woman who are not married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and
where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment
or disciplinary action.

While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is
not within our authority to decide on matters touching on employees’ personal lives, especially
those that will affect their and their family’s future. We cannot intrude into the question of whether they
should or should not marry. - Abanag v. Mabute, A.M. No. P-11-2922, 2011

Estrada v. Escritor case

Respondent, court interpreter in said court, was investigated for living with a man not her husband, and
having borne a child within this live-in arrangement. Complainant believes that [the court interpreter]
is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to
remain employed therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Consequently, respondent
was charged with committing "disgraceful and immoral conduct“. - Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-
1651 August 4, 2003

Cont…
She admitted that she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage more
than twenty years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She also admitted

12
that she and Quilapio have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, respondent asserted that their conjugal arrangement is in
conformity with their religious beliefs and has the approval of her congregation.
Invoking the religious beliefs, practices and moral standards of her congregation, she asserts that her
conjugal arrangement does not constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct for which she should
be held administratively liable. - Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

Cont…
Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent’s conjugal
arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on
her fundamental right to freedom of religion. The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld
in order that freedoms - including religious freedom - may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a
preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state
interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state
that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man must be
allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.- Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

Penalties imposed in administrative cases [judiciary] are immediately executory

We stressed that when suspension is "to take effect immediately", this Court means that the period of
suspension should commence on the day respondent judge receives notice of the decision suspending
him from office.

While this does not preclude the filing by respondent judge of a motion for reconsideration, the filing and
pendency of such a motion does not have the effect of staying the suspension order. – Dr. Alday v. Judge
Cruz, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530. February 4, 2002

Penalties imposed in administrative cases [of lawyers] are NOT immediately executory
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 thereof. The denial of said motion
shall render the decision final and executory. - Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

“Res Judicata” applies

The Investigating Commissioner properly dismissed the complaint in this case on the ground of res
judicata, it appearing that it involves the same incident and the same cause of action as
Administrative Case No. 3825. Indeed, it appears that on August 5, 1995, the First Division of the Court
dismissed a similar complaint filed in Administrative Case No. 3835. – Halimao v. Atty. Villanueva, A.C. No.
3825. February 1, 1996

Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts
AM. No. 02-9-02-SC. This resolution, entitled “Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases
Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and
Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar.

Cont…
Under the same rule, a respondent “may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show
cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as member of
the Bar.” xxx In other words, an order to comment on the complaint is an order to give an
explanation on why he should not be held administratively liable not only as a member of the
bench but also as a member of the bar.

13
This is the fair and reasonable meaning of “automatic conversion” of administrative cases against justices
and judges to disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers. This will also serve the purpose of A.M. No.
02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary replication of actions by treating an
administrative complaint filed against a member of the bench also as a disciplinary proceeding against him
as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule. – Campos, et. al. v. Atty. Campos, A.C. No. 8644, January 22, 2014

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

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 Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C.
Rusiana of Cebu City. A.C. No. 270 March 29, 1974

SC acting as an administrative tribunal, cannot review the trial court’s decision

At the outset, it should be emphasized that this Court, acting as an administrative tribunal, cannot review
the trial court’s decision. – Belga v. Buban, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1512. May 9, 2000
Breached of promise to marry not subject to sanction
Complainant filed the instant petition averring that respondent and she had been sweethearts, that a child
out of wedlock was born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her.

We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual
bond which should be entered into because of love, not for any other reason. – Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr.,
SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997

Desistance cannot stop a disciplinary investigation

The aforesaid letter hardly deserves consideration as proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted by
reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the
complainant to prosecute the same. - Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court
Death of complainant
The fact that Telles died soon after filing the present complaint not absolve Atty. Dancel from any liability.
Disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are unlike civil suits where the complainants are the plaintiffs
and the respondent attorneys are the defendants. They neither involve private interests nor afford
mere redress for private grievances. Rather, they are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
welfare, for the purpose of preserving the courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
practice law before them. The complainant or any other person who has brought the attorney's misconduct
to the attention of the Court is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome
except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. - Romeo Telles v. Atty. Rogelio
P. Dancel, A.C. No. 5279, September 08, 2020

Reconciliation of parties or amicable settlement

Therefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot just set aside the finding of culpability against the
respondents merely because the complainants have decided to forgive them or settle matters
amicably after the case was completely evaluated and reviewed by the IBP.
The complainants’ forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case does not ipso facto obliterate the
misconduct committed by Francisco. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the complainants to
withdraw the disbarment case considering that they had already presented and supported their claims

14
with convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has promulgated a resolution on the basis thereof. –
Sps. Amatorio v. Atty. F. Yap & Atty. W. Yap, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015

Ex-parte investigation allowed

An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable
notice. – Cottam v. Atty. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834 February 29, 2000

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court 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.

Affidavit stands in lieu complainant’s testimony

As for complainant’s failure to testify on her own behalf, this is of no moment. Complainant’s affidavit
stands in lieu of her testimony; the investigating judge even had her re-subscribe and re-affirm her sworn
statement and let the same be adopted as part of complainant’s evidence. – Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M.
No. MTJ 98-1168. April 21, 1999

Disciplinary authority v. Judicial action

It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of the
Court or whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If the matter
involves violations of the lawyer’s oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Court’s disciplinary
authority. However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not
directly require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of
a judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Court’s disciplinary authority. – Felipe,
et. al. v. Atty. Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 02, 2013
WON the money should be returned to complainant
It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls within the disciplinary authority of the
Court OR whether the matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. - Annacta v. Atty.
Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 August 14, 2012

Cont…
If the matter involves violations of the lawyer’s oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Court’s
disciplinary authority.

However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal liability, and which do not directly
require an inquiry into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a
judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the Court’s disciplinary authority.
Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to the mental and moral fitness of the
respondent to remain as member of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be
directed to return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within the Court’s
disciplinary authority. Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 August 14, 2012

Return of money or fees

It is well to note that "[w]hile the Court has previously held that disciplinary proceedings should only
revolve around the determination of the respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his: civil liability, it
must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which are purely civil
in nature - for instance, when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from his client in a
transaction separate and distinct and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement."
Since respondent received the aforesaid amount as part of her legal fees, the Court, thus, finds the return
thereof to be in order, with legal interest as recommended by the IBP Investigating Commissioner. – Sps.
Lopez v. Atty. Limos, A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016

15
Sui generis principle
It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding
of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondent’s acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively.

In the same vein, the trial court’s finding of civil liability against the respondent will not inexorably lead
to a similar finding in the administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable disposition in the
civil action absolve the administrative liability of the lawyer.
The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such
that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. - Gatchalian
Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017. September 29, 1999

“Beso-beso” is merely a form of greeting, casual and customary in nature

Judge Acosta's acts of bussing Atty. Aquino on her cheek were merely forms of greetings, casual and
customary in nature. No evidence of intent to sexually harass complainant was apparent, only that the
innocent acts of 'beso-beso' were given malicious connotations by the complainant. – Atty. Aquino v. Justice
Acosta, A.M. No. CTA-01-1. April 2, 2002

Quantum of evidence [judges]

“The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such
is the rule where the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect,
corruption, incompetency, etc. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials
apply.” - OCA v. Judge Pascual, A.M. No. MTJ-93-783. July 29, 1996

Quantum of evidence [judges]

As a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in deciding administrative cases. Only
substantial evidence is required, as clearly provided for under Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence:

“Sec 5. Substantial evidence. -- In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be
deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”- Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ
98-1168. April 21, 1999

Quantum of evidence [lawyers]

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may
proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is
necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, “clearly preponderant evidence” is all
that is required. Thus, a criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same
facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. – Gatchalian Promotions Talents
Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017. September 29, 1999

Absolute pardon
An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but removes all disabilities resulting from
the conviction. In the case of In re Marcelino Lontok, the Court, in dismissing the disbarment proceeding
against the respondent therein, who had been convicted of bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude,
upon the ground that the respondent had been granted plenary pardon for his crime, applied the rule that
"a person reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when
the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the
law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the crime," and, "if granted before
conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it

16
makes him, as it were, a new man and gives him a new credit and capacity. - In re: Atty. Rovero, A.M. No.
126 December 29, 1980

Application of Res Ipsa loquitor doctrine

In several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further inquiry or resort to any formal
investigation where the facts on record sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of their
administrative liability. – Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009

Court disbarred a lawyer without need of any further investigation after considering his actions based on
records showing his unethical misconduct. - In re: Complaint against Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9,
1987

A trial-type hearing is not de riqueur. - In re: Complaint against Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987

Preventive suspension for erring lawyer

Rule 139-B Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys 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 Investigator, 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.

Preventive suspension not applicable to judges

Based on the foregoing disquisition, the Court is of the resolve that, while it is true that preventive
suspension pendente lite does not violate the right of the accused to be presumed innocent as the same is
not a penalty, the rules on preventive suspension of judges, not having been expressly included in
the Rules of Court, are amorphous at best. – Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC
January 31, 2008

CA or RTC may suspend an attorney

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

IBP has no jurisdiction

Considering that both Exconde and Madrona are public officers being charged for actions, which are
allegedly unfair and discriminatory, involving their official functions during their tenure, the
present case should be resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman as the appropriate government agency.
Indeed, the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative
offenses involving their official duties. For such acts, government lawyers fall under the disciplinary
authority of either their superior or the Ombudsman. Moreover, an anomalous situation will arise if
the IBP asserts jurisdiction and decides against a government lawyer, while the disciplinary authority finds
in favor of the government lawyer. - Sps. Buffe v. Secretary Raul Gonzales, et. al., A.C. No. 8168, October 12,
2016

………….
Indeed, the accountability of respondents as officials performing or discharging their official duties as
lawyers of the Government is always to be differentiated from their accountability as members of the
Philippine Bar. The IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate them as such lawyers. - Randy N. Segura v.
Associate Prosecution Attorney Marilou R. Garachico-Fabila, A.C. No. 9837, September 02, 2019

Use of Office Checks during suspension

We think that using office checks with the designation "Attorneys at Law" imprinted on them even if in
small print is a representation to the public that the drawer of the check is a lawyer or law office.

17
The referee's findings in this respect are not clearly erroneous. These acts by Webster plus his placing the
phone directory advertisement listing his law office before his suspension ended reflect a cynical
attitude inconsistent with the high ethical standards we expect from those admitted to practice law in this
state. Although these actions might not constitute practicing law, we conclude they refute any claim
by Webster that he has met his burden under SCR 22.21 to obtain reinstatement.
……..
As discussed above, Webster's check writing and placing the telephone ad reflect a cavalier attitude on
his part toward the standards of behavior needed to gain reinstatement. These acts demonstrate that
Webster has failed to meet his burden of proof xxxx to obtain reinstatement of his license. Webster's
repeated lapses in judgment reflected by these actions support our decision to deny his reinstatement
petition. - IN the MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST Leslie J. WEBSTER, 647 N.W.2d 831,
2002

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

It is settled that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its authority upon erring
judges whose actuations, on their face, would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or
misconduct.

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not except or dispense with the necessity of proving the facts on
which the inference of evil intent is based. It merely expresses the clearly sound and reasonable conclusion
that when such facts are admitted or are already shown by the record, and no credible explanation
that would negative the strong inference of evil intent is forthcoming, no further hearing to establish
them to support a judgment as to the culpability of a respondent is necessary. - In Re: Undated letter of Mr.
Louis C. Biraogo, petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, G.R. no. 179120, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC,
February 24, 2009

A lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to
bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. Indeed, there is
no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his
professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a
mere citizen at another. -Eugenia Mendoza v. Atty. Victor V. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5338, Feb. 23, 2009

Suspended counsel represented her spouse

Atty. Lozada would have deserved a harsher penalty, but this Court recognizes the fact that it is part of the
Filipino culture that amid an adversity, families will always look out and extend a helping hand to a family
member, more so, in this case, to a spouse. Thus, considering that Atty. Lozada's actuation was prompted
by her affection to her husband and that in essence, she was not representing a client but rather a
spouse, we deem it proper to mitigate the severeness of her penalty. - Alvin S. Feliciano v. Atty. Carmelita
Bautista-Lozada, A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015

Effect if a criminal prosecution based on the same act is pending

• With respect to the estafa case which is the basis for the charge of malpractice or other gross
misconduct in office, the respondent is not yet convicted thereof. In Gerona vs. Datingaling, we held
that when the criminal prosecution based on the same act charged is still pending in court, any
administrative disciplinary proceedings for the same act must await the outcome of the criminal
case to avoid contradictory findings. - Cambaliza v. Atty. Ana Luz B. Cristal-Tenorio Adm. Case No.
6290

Double disbarment not allowed

Back to the case at bar: While indeed respondent's condemnable acts ought to merit the penalty of
disbarment, we cannot disbar her anew, for in this jurisdiction we do not impose double disbarment.
-Punla and Santos v. Atty. Eleonor Maravilla-OnaA.C. No. 11149 August 15, 2017

18
Disclosure of prior disciplinary sanction to clients as condition for reinstatement
Imposing a disclosure requirement on [applicant] would seem to be altogether inconsistent with his
readmission to the practice of law. We have been given no explanation how disclosure might serve any
useful purpose here. Because [applicant’s] readmission is founded on our conclusion that he presents no
danger of misconduct to future clients, we decline to impose a disclosure condition. We observe that
because all of our decisions relating to [applicant’s] disbarment and repeated attempts at reinstatement
have been published, they are readily available to any potential client who chooses to conduct research
prior to retaining [applicant]. -In the REINSTATEMENT Matter Involving Jon E. Wiederholt, Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Alaska. February 22, 2013. 295 P.3d 396 (2013)

Effect of pending administrative cases

Accordingly, the fact that other cases have also been filed against Atty. Maravilla-Ona and are pending
resolution before the IBP or this Court should not be taken against her. Until these cases are resolved, such
should not influence this Court's determination of the proper penalty to impose upon her in this instance. –
Gutierrez v. Atty. Maravilla-Ona, July 12, 2016, A.C. No. 10944

Death of respondent lawyer

On August 30, 2013, the IBP filed its compliance, attaching therewith the Certificate of Death of Atty.
Adquilen which indicates that the latter passed away on June 22, 2008 due to cardiac arrhythmia. In view
of Atty. Adquilen's death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, the Court, bearing in mind the
punitive nature of administrative liabilities, hereby dismisses the case against him. Hence, what is
left for resolution is the complaint against Atty. Quesada. - Dagala v. Atty. Quesada, A.C. No. 5044, Dec 02,
2013

Associate is also liable for unauthorized practice of law

There is no question that Atty. Bragas has knowledge of Atty. Era's suspension from the practice of law and
yet, she allowed herself to participate in Atty. Era's unauthorized practice. Clearly, Atty. Bragas violated the
CPR, specifically:

CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
Being an associate in Atty. Era's law firm cannot be used to circumvent the suspension order. The factual
circumstances of the case clearly shows that Atty. Bragas did not act to replace Atty. Era as counsel for
his and/or the law firm's clients during the latter's suspension. Atty. Bragas merely assisted Atty. Era, who
admittedly was the one actively performing all acts pertaining to the labor case he was handling. - Bonifacio
v. Atty. Era & Atty Bragas, A.C. No. 11754, October 03, 2017

Rule 139-B section 12 before amended by B.M. 1645

Section 12. Review and decision 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. 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.

19
…….
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than
suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating
respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the
complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise.

d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel.
A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

B.M. No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court had in fact been later amended by B.M. No. 1645 dated October 13, 2015.
Section 12 thereof now reads:

Sec. 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 shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.

Whether domestic squabbles involving a lawyer and his/her spouse are proper subjects of a
disbarment proceeding
We rule, pro hac vice, in the positive. Atty. Cristobal's actions fall short of the exacting moral standard
required of the noble profession of law.
Although acts amounting to gross immorality cannot be delineated, this Court has held that grossly
immoral conduct is one that is "willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." Determining whether one's actions is
grossly immoral depends on the attendant circumstances and prevailing norms of conduct.
The instant administrative case is hinged on Atty. Cristobal's violent and abusive behavior towards his wife.
- Divine Grace P. Cristobal v. Atty. Jonathan A. Cristobal, A.C. No. 12702, November 08, 2020

Thank you for your attention!!

20