Legal Ethics Presentation - Rosario, John Daryl C.

Suspension,
Disbarment, and
Discipline of
Lawyers
Presented by:
John Daryl C. Rosario
JD-1F
Outlines
Topic 1 : Nature and characteristics of
disciplinary actions against lawyers
Topic 11 : Grounds for suspension or disbarment

of members of the bar
Topic 111 : Liabilities of a lawyer
Topic IV : Procedure in disbarment and other

disciplinary proceedings
Sunday, October 29, 2023 Legal Ethics – Suspension, Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers 2
Introduction • Right to practice law being just a privilege is a burdened with
conditions.
• Membership in the Bar maybe suspended or removed from a lawyer

for reasons provided in the Rules of Court, Laws and Jurisprudence.
Topic one
Nature and characteristics of disciplinary
actions against lawyers
The power to discipline, suspend or disbar a lawyer is
judicial in nature and can be exercised only by courts.
SUSPENSION DISBARMENT
• This is the temporary withholding of the lawyer's • It is the act of the Philippine Supreme
privilege to practice his profession for a certain Court in withdrawing from an attorney the
period, or for an indefinite period of time.
privilege to practice law.
• Limit Of Suspension From Practice Of Law.-The
suspension referred to in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, refers only to suspension from
the practice of law.
• The Supreme Court has the full authority and power to warn, admonish, reprimand, suspend and disbar a
lawyer (Section 27, Rule 138, RRC). The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts are also
empowered to warn, admonish, reprimand and suspend an attorney who appears before them from the
practice of law for any of the causes mentioned in Section 27, of Rule 138, RRC.
• The main objects of disbarment and suspension proceedings are:
(1) to compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly with his clients; and
(2) to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted
with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney
(3) to punish the lawyer although not so much as to safeguard the adminlstration of justice
(4) to set an example or a warning for the other members of the bar
(5) to safeguard the administration of justice from incompetence and dishonesty of lawyers
(6) to protect the public

• Goal Of Disbarment.-Restorative justice, not retributive justice is the goal in disciplinary
proceedings against lawyers.
Characteristics Of Disbarment Proceeding.-
1. A disbarment proceeding is a class by itself. It is sui generis. It has the following
characteristics: 1.
1. It is neither a civil or criminal proceeding
2. Double jeopardy cannot be availed
3. It can be initiated motu proprio by the SC or IBP
4. It can be proceeded regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainants,
if the facts proven so warrant.
5. It is imprescriptible
6. It is conducted confidentially being confidential in nature until its final
determination.
7. It is itself due process of law.
7. It is itself due process of law.
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment cases cannot be a source of right
that may be enforced in another action, like action for reconveyance and
damages.
9. In pari delicto rule is not applicable. The penalty in a disbarment case cannot be
alternative.
• Courts should exercise sound discretion and extreme case in suspending or disbarring lawyers
in such a way that the rights and independence of the Bar will be scrupulously guarded and
maintained by the court as the rights and dignity of the courts itself.
• The power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of
misconduct which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyers as an officer of
the court and member of the bar.
Topic two
Grounds for suspension or disbarment of
members of the bar
• The Rules of Court are the guidelines that govern the conduct of business in the
country’s courts. Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, states the following as
grounds for disbarment:
• Deceit
• Malpractice
• Gross misconduct in office
• Grossly immoral conduct
• Conviction of a crime that involves moral turpitude
• Violation of the lawyers’ oath
• Willfully disobeying lawful orders of a superior court
• Corruptly or willfully appearing as legal counsel for a camp without the authority to do so.
• The grounds under Section 27, Rule 138 of the ROC are not limitative.
• Deceit = fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more persons to deceive and trick
another, who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and damage of the party imposed upon.
• Malpractice = refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer.
• Gross misconduct in office = any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of the person
concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause.
Such conduct is generally motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
• Grossly immoral conduct = that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
• Moral Turpitude = everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness,
or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.
• If the Filipino lawyer is disbarred or suspended in a foreign jurisdiction, such disbarment or suspension is a ground
for his disbarment or suspension in the Philippines.
Topic three
Liabilities of a lawyer
SPECIAL DISABILITIES OF A LAYWER
• Betrayal of trust and revealing the secrets of clients
• Punishable of Prison Correction (Minimum) under Article 209, Par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
• Presentation of Inadmissible Affidavits under the Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Maybe disciplined for violation of Section 20 of the Rules on Summary Procedure
• Deliberate non-signing or signing of pleadings in violations of the Rules.
• Shall be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action under Rule 7 Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Purchase of Property or Rights of client in a property subject of Litigation
• Prohibited under Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Such purchase is void.
• Exception:
• Purchased property from a client not subject for litigation or if he acquired it before he became counsel for the
client or if he acquired it after the case involving the property had been terminated.
CIVIL LIABILITIES OF A LAYWER
• Intended Omission of Gross Negligence Resulting to Client’s Prejudice
• Those who in the performance of the obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence or delay are liable for damages ( Art. 1170, Civil Code)
• When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions od Articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2 shall apply.
• Lawyers are required in the performance of their duties to exert that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family.
• A client who is prejudiced by the negligence or misconduct of his lawyer can recover damages against him.
• Requisites to render an Attorney liable for damages due to negligence or omission:
• Attorney-client relationship be established.
• There is want of reasonable care and diligence
• Injury suffered by the client which was the proximate result thereof.
• Negligence of Counsel binds clients:
• Exceptions : When through the recklessness and gross negligence of the counsel, the client is deprived of due process of law, or when its
application results in the outright deprivation of one’s property through technicality, the client is not bound by the acts of the lawyer.
• Client must also exercise diligence. A party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect.
Topic four
Procedure in disbarment and other
disciplinary proceedings
• Preliminary
• Presumption of Innocence exists in favor of the respondent-lawyer.
• Clearly preponderant evidence is required.
• Burden of proof rests upon the complainant
• The duty of the Supreme Court is not limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but
also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged.
• Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances for which respondent is sought to be administartiively liable is not a
requisite for filing a disbarment complainant.
• To avoid the unnecessary ruin of a lawyer’s name, disciplinary proceedings are directed to be confidential (or closed door)
until their final determination.
• Mitigating circumstances may be considered in favor of the respondent which have the effect of lessening the gravity of the
administrative imposition that may be meted to him.
• Principle of Rep Isa Loquitor applicable to Judges and Lawyers

• Judges had been dismissed from the service without need of formal investigation because based on the records, the gross
misconduct of inefficiency of the judges clearly appears.
• Filing of Complaint and Investigation
• Officers authorized to investigate disbarment cases
a. Supreme Court
b. IBP through Commission on Bar Discipline or authorized personnel
c. Office of the Solicitor General
d. RTC and CA can investigate and take action only against lawyers who appear for litigants in cases pending before
them.
• Where to file complaint for disbarment

• Directly to Supreme Court, IBP National Office or in any IBP Chapter in the country.
• SC ordinarily refers disbarment cases to IBP for investigation, report, and recommendations or it may itself for special
reasons.
• Who can file a disbarment case

• Any persons aggrieved by the misconduct of a lawyer or any person who knows of the lawyer’s misconduct, unlawful or
unethical act. The Supreme Court or IBP may motu propio initiate the proceedings.
• How the complaint is instituted
• Rule 139-B Rules of Court
Section 1. How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme
Court motu propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. 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 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.
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.
• Proceedings at the IBP National Office
• The Commission on Bar Discipline has been recognized by the SC as the investigating arm of the IBP.
• Formal Investigation is mandatory. Ex Parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appeal despite
reasonable notices.
• The Board of Governors is the governing body of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
• The Final Report and Recommendations of the CBD are forwarded to the BOF for affirmation or modification. Thereafter, the
Resolutions of the BOG are forwarded to the Supreme Court for ultimate and final action. Decisions of the CBD of the IBP are
merely recommendatory.
• However, if the recommendations is less than suspension such as admonitions, reprimand or censure or fine, the decision of the
BOG shall become final and executory if no party appeals the same to the Supreme Court within 15 days from the notice of the
Board’s resolution. If appeal is made to the Supreme Court, the Court may rule otherwise.
• Requisites for suspension of a lawyer by the IBP BOG:

• A review of the investigator’s report
• Formal voting
• A vote of at least 5 members of the Board

• Proceedings at the IBP National Office
• All lawyers whether in the government service or in private practice may be investigated by the CBD except those who are in the
judiciary, that is Justices and judges.
• IBP should resolved cases within 90 days period.
• Application for extension of time should be files with the Supreme Court if more time is needed.
• Ignoring IBP Proceedings: Effect - Disbarment
• Proceedings in the Supreme Court
• Rule 139-B, Rules of Courts
• Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation. — In proceedings initiated motu propio 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 Solicitor-
General 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.
• Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-designated Investigator. — Based upon the evidence adduced at
the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme
Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.
• Affidavits of Desistance, Settlement, Compromise, Restitution, Withdrawal of Charges, or Failure to Prosecute
• Shall not interrupt or terminate the investigation unless the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon
recommendation of the IBP BOG that there is no compelling reason to continue with the proceedings.
• Causes of Dismissal
• Withdrawal of Complaint
• Lack of Interest
• Affidavit of desistance will cause dismissal of case if there is nothing more which could substantiate the charge.
• Dismissal of a criminal case is not determinative of the liability of the accused for disbarment.
Case No. 1
Title: FIDELA BENGCO AND TERESITA BENGCO, Complainants, vs. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO, Respondent.
Reference No: A.C. No. 6368, June 13, 2012
Ponente: Justice Bienvenido Reyes Jr.
FA C T S ISSUE RULING
• Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed • Whether or not the respondent • The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the
a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo violated the provisions of the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted in his answer that
S. Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct Code of Professional his legal services were hired by the complainants through
unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation Magat regarding the purported titling of land supposedly
Responsibility (CPR)?
of duties and oath as a lawyer. purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the
complainants into believing that he can expedite the titling of the
• From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, subject properties.
the respondent – with the connivance of Andres
• He never denied that he did not benefit from the money given by
Magat committed fraudulent act with intent to
the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00.The Supreme
defraud against the complainants by using false
Court finds the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03,
pre tenses and deceitful words to the effect that
Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the CPR. The respondent
he would expedite the titling of land belonging
was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the
to the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who amount of PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco
are the acquaintance of the complainants with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The respondent is required
to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.
Case No. 2
Title: IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA
Reference No: B.M. No. 793 ; July 30, 2004
Ponente: Justice Dante Tinga
FA C T S ISSUE
RULING
• The District Court of Guam informed the SC of the 2- • W/N member of the • Yes. As Maquera has not yet been able to adduce
year suspension of Atty. Maquera from the practice of
law in Guam. The IBP sent Maquera a Notice of Philippine Bar who was evidence on his behalf, the SC required him to
Hearing requiring him to appear before the IBP's disbarred or suspended show cause why he should not be suspended or
Commission on Bar Discipline but the notice was
returned unserved because Maquera’s current address from the practice of law disbarred for said acts. In the meantime, Atty.
was unknown. in a foreign jurisdiction Maquera was SUSPENDED for 1 YEAR or
• The IBP found that Maquera was admitted to practice may likewise be until he shall have paid his membership dues,
law in the Philippines in 1958 and in Guam in 1974.He
was suspended in Guam for misconduct, as he acquired
disbarred or suspended in whichever comes later.
his client's property as payment for his legal services, this country for the same
then sold it and as a consequence obtained an
infraction? • It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court’s
unreasonably high fee for handling his client's case.
Based on the Decision of the Superior Court of Guam,
judgment ordering Maquera's suspension from
the IBP concluded that although the said court found the practice of law in Guam does not
Maquera liable for misconduct, "there is no evidence to
establish that [Maquera]committed a breach of ethics in
automatically result in his suspension or
the Philippines. However, the IBP still resolved to disbarment in the Philippines
suspend him indefinitely for his failure to pay his annual
dues as a member of the IBP since 1977
Case No. 3
Title: CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA vs. ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW
Reference No: A.C. No. 13021, A.C. No. 13912, A.C. No. 15433 ; June 30, 2008
Ponente: Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro
• This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar • Whether or not the • Records show that the long period of respondent’s
of the respondent who was disbarred on 26 disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his
respondent should be
April 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and
readmitted to the misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to
introduction the same as evidence for his
client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent filed practice of law. demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once
several motions and appeals for reinstatement again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar.
to the bar. His motions and appeals were
accompanied by endorsements of his good • It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary
moral character by various organizations such proceedings is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided
as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges by their doctrine and considering the evidence submitted
of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and by respondent satisfactorily showing his contribution
Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ and his being again worthy of membership in the legal
Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board
profession, the Supreme Court find that it is now time to
of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and
past National President of the IBP.
lift respondent’s disbarment.
Case No. 4
Title: RODOLFO M. BERNARDO vs. ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA
Reference No: Adm. Case No. 2984, August 31, 2007
Ponente: Justice Eduardo Nachura
• Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused, Ismael F. Mejia of several
administrative offenses such as misappropriating and converting to his
• WON the respondent • The Court granted the respondent’s petition. Fifteen years has
personal use the money entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes shall be reinstated passed since he was punished with the severe penalty of
on Bernardo’s property; falsification of documents such as the Special
disbarment. Although the Court does not lightly take the bases
Power of Attorney, Deed of Sale and Deed of Assignment and lastly,
issuing a check knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in for Mejias disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that
payment of a loan obtained from the former in the amount of P50,000.00, Mejia is already of advanced years. Since his disbarment in 1992,
and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has
insufficiently funded.
shown remorse. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty
to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show
• The Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision Per Curiam which
found the respondent Atty. Mejia guilty of all the charges against him and
compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its
imposed on him the penalty of Disbarment. Respondent files a Petition purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not
praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law however, the to punish but to correct offenders. However, the petitioner is
Supreme Court En Banc denied his petition for reinstatement reminded that practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness,
• At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for
maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful
reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered
enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the
children and redeem the indignity that they have suffered due to his continuing requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice
disbarment. law.
Case No. 5
Title: RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS, ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, Petitioner,
Reference No: B.M. No. 1222, April 24, 2009
Ponente: Justice Consuelo Ynares - Santiago
• Danilo De Guzman was disbarred for an issue • Whether or not Danilo de • Yes. It is of no question that petitioner’s act in copying
regarding the 2003 Bar Examinations. Working as
an assistant lawyer in the Balgos & Perez, he
Guzman should be the Bar Exam questions in Mercantile Law in the
leaked the exam questions to his fraternity reinstated as a member of 2003 Bar Examinations is not at all commendable.
brothers thinking that they were just quizzers in the Bar. While we do believe that petitioner sincerely did not
a book supposedly written by the examiner who
was one of the partners. He now prays that he be intend to cause the damage that his action ensued,
granted judicial clemency and be reinstated as a still, he must be sanctioned for unduly
member in good standing in the Philippine Bar. compromising the integrity of the bar
• He presented as evidence his track record in examinations.
public service that has been going on even before
he entered law school. After his disbarment, he • The petitioner has since reformed and has sincerely
worked as the consultant of the City Government
of Taguig and later, a member of the Secretariat reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the
of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board (PLEB). It circumstances and likewise for the humanitarian
was coupled with testimonials and endorsements considerations, the penalty of disbarment may now
from various individuals and entities all attesting to
his good character be commuted to suspension
Case No. 6
Title: ELPIDIO P. TIONG vs. ATTY. GEORGE M. FLORENDO PABLO S. BERNARDO
Reference No: A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011
Ponente: Justice Estella Perlas-Bernabe
• Atty. George Florendo has been serving as the • No. A petition for suspension or disbarment of a
• Whether or not Atty.
lawyer of spouses Elpidio and Ma. Elena Tiong. lawyer is a sui generis case. This class of cases
Elpidio, a US citizen is often times away. For two Florendo is correct.
years, he suspected that his wife and Atty. Florendo
is meant to protect the public and the courts of
were having an affair. Finally in 1995, he was able undesirable members of the legal profession. As
to listen to a telephone conversation where he heard such, pardon by the offended party of the act
Atty. Florendo mention amorous words to Ma.
Elena. Atty. Florendo confronted the two and both complained of does not operate to offset the
eventually admitted to their illicit relationship. Atty. ground for disbarment or suspension. Florendo’s
Florendo and Ma. Elena then executed and signed
act of having an affair with his client’s wife
an affidavit, which was later notarized, stating that
they admit of their illicit relationship; that they are manifested his disrespect for the laws on the
seeking the forgiveness of their respective spouse. sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of
Elpidio forgave Florendo and Ma. Elena. But
nevertheless, Elpidio filed a disbarment case against
fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity
Florendo. Florendo said he can no longer be and low regard for the ethics of his profession.
sanctioned because he was already pardoned.
Case No. 7
Title: EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE, vs. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI
Reference No: A.C. No. 10672, 18 March 2015
Ponente: Justice Estella Perlas Bernabe
• Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 • Whether respondent • Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and
dated May 9, 2006 filed by complainant Eduardo diligence as men of the legal profession commonly
should be held
A. Maglente (complainant), before the Integrated possess and exercise in such matters of professional
Bar of the Philippines (IBP), against respondent
administratively liable employment, and hence, must be disciplined accordingly.
Atty. Delfin R. Agcaoili, Jr. (respondent), praying for the acts complained
that the latter be directed to return the amount of of. • Having established respondent’s administrative liability,
P48,000.00 that he received from the former. the Court now determines the proper penalty to be
imposed.
• Complainant further alleged that when he
persisted in seeking restitution of the aforesaid • Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where
sum, respondent told him to shut up because it lawyers neglected their clients’ affairs and, at the same
was not his money in the first place. Hence, time, failed to return the latter’s money and/or property
complainant filed this administrative complaint despite demand, the Court meted out the penalty of
seeking the return of the full amount he had paid suspension from the practice of law.
to respondent.
Case No. 8
Title: FLORENCE TEVES MACARRUBO, et.al vs. ATTY. EDMUNDO L. MACARRUBO
RE: PETITION (FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO
Reference No: Adm. Case No. 6148, 22 January 2013
Ponente: Justice Estella Perlas Bernabe
• Respondent was re-instated in the Roll of Attorney
• For resolution is the Petition (For • Whether or not Atty.
Extraordinary Mercy) filed by respondent Macarubbo should be reinstated
• Respondent had sufficiently shown his remorse and
Edmundo L. Macarubbo who seeks to be in the Roll of Attorneys. acknowledged his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his
reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys. personal life. He had asked forgiveness from his children by
complainant and maintained a cordial relationship with them
Records also showed that after his disbarment, Respondent
• The Court disbarred him for having likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by helping
contracted a bigamous marriage with the his neighbors and friends who are in dire need. Furthermore,
complainant and a third marriage with respondent’s plea for reinstatement was duly supported by the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cagayan Chapter and by his
another while his first marriage was still former and present colleagues.
subsisting, which acts constituted gross
immoral conduct in violation of Canon 1, • While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even
Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show
compassion to those who have reformed their ways, as in this
Code of Professional Responsibility case.
Foreword Law is a noble profession. As such, lawyers shall respect his or her
profession by practicing the same in a manner that is consistent with legal
and ethical standards of an attorney-in-law. Otherwise, he may be subjected
to a disciplinary action, initiated by the Supreme Court or upon a complaint
of a third person. The practice of law must be consistent with Legal Ethics.
Thank You
Presenter: John Daryl C. Rosario

Legal Ethics Presentation - Rosario, John Daryl C.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Ethics Presentation - Rosario, John Daryl C.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suspension,

John Daryl C. Rosario

Topic 11 : Grounds for suspension or disbarment

Topic 111 : Liabilities of a lawyer

Topic IV : Procedure in disbarment and other

• Membership in the Bar maybe suspended or removed from a lawyer

• The main objects of disbarment and suspension proceedings are:

(6) to protect the public

• Gross misconduct in office

• Grossly immoral conduct

• Conviction of a crime that involves moral turpitude

• Violation of the lawyers’ oath

• Willfully disobeying lawful orders of a superior court

• Malpractice = refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed by a lawyer.

• Presentation of Inadmissible Affidavits under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

• Maybe disciplined for violation of Section 20 of the Rules on Summary Procedure

• Deliberate non-signing or signing of pleadings in violations of the Rules.

• Purchase of Property or Rights of client in a property subject of Litigation

• Requisites to render an Attorney liable for damages due to negligence or omission:

• Attorney-client relationship be established.

• There is want of reasonable care and diligence

• Negligence of Counsel binds clients:

• Clearly preponderant evidence is required.

• Burden of proof rests upon the complainant

• Principle of Rep Isa Loquitor applicable to Judges and Lawyers

b. IBP through Commission on Bar Discipline or authorized personnel

c. Office of the Solicitor General

• Where to file complaint for disbarment

• Who can file a disbarment case

• Requisites for suspension of a lawyer by the IBP BOG:

• A vote of at least 5 members of the Board

• IBP should resolved cases within 90 days period.

• Ignoring IBP Proceedings: Effect - Disbarment

You might also like