The Supreme Court has consistently considered disbarment and suspension of an attorney as the most

severe forms of disciplinary action, which should be imposed with great caution – they should be meted
out only for duly proven serious administrative charges. (Saberon vs. Larong, SCRA 359)

The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the
standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. (Wilkie vs. Ramos, 570 scra 1)

Gross Misconduct has been defined as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence. (Palero-Tan vs. Urdaneta, Jr. 555 SCRA 28)

Misconduct has been defined as any unlawful conduct, on the part of the person concerned with the
administration of justice, prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the
cause – it generally means wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate, or intentional purpose the act of the respondent demanding and receiving money from the
litigants constitutes grave misconduct in office. Malabanan vs. Metrillo, 544 SCRA 1

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of

behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the
performance of official duties. (Geronca vs. Magalona, 545 SCRA 1; Civil Service Commission vs. Nierras,
545 SCRA 316.

The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption
that when the administrative body, or grievance machinery, is afforded a chance to pass upon the
matter, it will decide the same correctly – thus, for reasons of comity and convenience, our courst of
justice will shy away from dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and
complied with so as to give the administrative agency every opportunity to correct its error and dispose
of the case. (Rizal Security & Protective Services, Inc. vs. Maraan, 546 SCRA 23)