HOW DIFFICULT FOR A LAWYER TO BE DISBARRED?

Practice of Law in the Philippines

“Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at
least 21 years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce
before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines” (Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court).

‘The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of
such privilege” (Bongolonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310 [1951]).1
In the Philippines, admission to the legal profession is a function solely vested in the Supreme
Court. Paragraph 5, Section 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme
Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law.2

WHAT IS DISBARMENT?
Disbarment is the extreme measure of discipline of an attorney, which is taking away his/her
license to practice law, often for life.  The name of the lawyer is stricken out from the Roll of
Attorneys, and he does not have the right to put in his name the prefix “Atty.” Neither can he
sign pleadings even if he does not personally appear in court. Disbarment only comes after
investigation and opportunities for the attorney to explain his improper conduct.3

Disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is

rather intended to protect the courts and the public from the misconduct of the officers of the
court and to ensure the proper administration of justice. Disbarment proceedings are sui
generis (a class of its own).  Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal
prosecution.4

Nature of Disbarment Case

Disbarment cases are ‘sui generis’ -a class of its own. Being neither criminal nor civil in nature,
disbarment cases are not intended to inflict penal or civil sanctions. The main question to be
determined is whether responded is still fit to continue to be an officer of the court in the
disposition of justice )Gonzales v. Alcaraz,, A.C. No. 5321, 27 Sept. 2006). 5 These cases are do
not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the
1
See: Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, in https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/10/02/disbarment-101/ (accessed
April 1, 2022)
2
Kremil S. David and Michelle Borromeo, A SURVEY OF DISBARMENT AND REINSTATEMENT
CASES IN PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE, in
https://www.academia.edu/3820105/A_Survey_of_Disbarment_and_Reinstatment_Cases (Accessed: April 1,
2022).
3
See Atty. Lorna Patajos-Kapunan (Oct. 2, 2017)
4
Ibid.
5
See Atty. Jericho Del Puerto, in https://barmentor.ph/library/1-nature-and-characteristics-of-disciplinary-
actions-against-lawyers (accessed April 1, 2022).
conduct of its officers. There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor. Public interest is the primary
objective for the resolution of a disbarment case (In the Matter of Proceeding for Disciplinary
Action Against Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen v. Yaptinchay, G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18 1970).6

Disbarment proceedings may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court (Section 1, Rule
139-B, Rules of Court). It could also be accommodated or investigated by the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, or by the solicitor General. The complainant in disbarment cases is not a direct
party to the case but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. There is no
prescription in disbarment cases. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the
offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative
culpability of a lawyer (Bengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012).7

Grounds for Disbarment

Section 27 of Rule 128 provides for the specific grounds for disbarment of a lawyer.
Accordingly, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court for
1. any deceit;
2. malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
3. grossly immoral conduct;
4.  by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5.  for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to
practice;
6.  for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or
7.  for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority
so to do.
These grounds are not exclusive. A lawyer may be disbarred even if the grounds are not any of
those provided in Section 27.8
The power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of the power to
admit persons to said practice. By constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this
Court. This duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce jurisdiction
legally invested upon it.
The power of the courts to exclude unfit and unworthy members of the profession is inherent; it
is a necessary incident to the proper administration of justice; it may be exercised without any
special statutory authority, and in all proper cases unless positively prohibited by statute; and the
power may be exercised in any manner that will give the party be disbarred a fair trial and a fair
opportunity to be heard. Although it is a well settled rule that the legislature or the Supreme
Court by virtue of its rule-making power may provide that certain acts or conduct shall require
disbarment, the accepted doctrine is that statutes and rules merely regulate the power to disbar
instead of creating it, and that such statutes (or rules) do not restrict the general powers of the
court over attorneys, who are its officers, and that they may be removed for other than statutory
grounds.9

6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
See Kremil S. David and Michelle Borromeo
9
Ibid.
“Perhaps the solution to deceit, malpractice, gross immoral conduct and moral turpitude of
lawyers is not disbarment or suspension, but a close monitoring and supervision of law schools
to ensure that they are infusing in their law students the importance, nobility and dignity of the
legal profession so that when these law students are admitted to the Bar, they subscribe in
solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice and swear to become guardians
of truth and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of
justice.”10

BAR Eligibility is not invalidated if a Lawyer is Disbarred.

Bar eligibility is not lost when a lawyer is disbarred. In one case, it was decided that a disbarred
lawyer may still use his Bar eligibility instead of first grade eligibility or civil service eligibility
in applying for a government job. “WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that the
disbarment of a private lawyer from the practice of law does not include the revocation of his
BAR Eligibility. Moreover, a disbarred lawyer may still use his BAR Eligibility in lieu of the
required eligibility in accordance with Republic Act No. 1080 for employment in the government
service, without prejudice to the filing of an administrative charge against him/her for
Disgraceful, Immoral or Dishonest Conduct Prior to Entering the Service.”11

10
Atty. Lorna Patajos-Kapunan, Oct. 2, 2017.
11
See: http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/itduser/res-020520.html.pdf (accessed April 1, 2022).