Frias v.

Bautista-Lozada
AC No. 6656; May 4, 2006

FACTS:

Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was formerly found guilty of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and of willfully disobeying a final and executory
decision of the Court of Appeals. She was suspended from the practice of law for two years.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Court, contending that,
pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the complaint against her was already barred by
prescription. She also asserts that her December 7, 1990 loan agreement with complainant
complied with Rule 16.04 because the interest of complainant was fully protected.

ISSUE:

WON the administrative complaint is barred by prescription.

HELD:

No. The filing of a disciplinary action does not prescribe despite the number of years lapsed.

Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP provides that a complaint for
disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the
professional misconduct. The Court has held in number of cases that the defense of prescription
does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers.

Furthermore, assuming that prescription is a valid defense, respondent raised it only at this late
stage. It was presumed that she was familiar with the Rules of Procedure yet she failed to invoke
it at the earliest opportunity, instead she opted to insist on her innocence.