SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT

It is a well-known cliché that with great power comes great responsibility.

Lawyering can be related to that since the practice of law is a privilege burdened with
conditions. Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest
degree of morality, faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession, and regular
payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines are the conditions
required for remaining member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege
to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy
of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients must repose in him or unfit to
continue in the exercise of his professional privilege. His misconduct justifies
disciplinary action against him or the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law. 1

Our Constitution mandated the Supreme Court to be the guardian of the legal
profession. It has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. It has the prerogative to
regulate the practice of law and the admission of persons to engage therein. 2 It is their
duty to regulate the practice of law as well as protect the rights and general welfare of
the people especially those who have little or even no knowledge of the law.

The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court under the authority granted
them by the Supreme Court, may likewise exercise disciplinary power over lawyers who
appear before them as counsel for litigants. 3 But either court can only impose
suspension or a lesser disciplinary sanction after giving the lawyer concerned the
opportunity to be heard on reasonable notice. 4 It cannot disbar a lawyer although it may
recommend his disbarment to the Supreme Court in the order suspending him. In case
the penalty imposed is suspension, the lawyer shall not practice law until further action
of the Supreme Court which may affirm, revoke or modify it, or cancel his name from the
Roll of Attorneys.5 In other words, the Supreme Court as the highest court solely has the
authority to disbar erring lawyers after thorough investigation.

Footnotes:
1
In re Edillon, 101 SCRA 612 (1980); In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970); Da- roy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA
304 (1975); In re Santiago, 70 Phil. 66 (194); Tejan v. Cusi, Jr., 57 SCRA 156 (1974).
2
Const. Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5); In re Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954).
3
Rule 138, Sec. 28, Rules of Court; Rule 139-B, Secs. 16 and 17, Rule of Court; Tejan v. Cusi, Jr
4
In re Cuenco, 41 Phil. 32 (1932); In re MacDougall, 3 Phil. 70 (1903); Tejan v. Cusi, Jr.
5
Rule 138, Sec. 28, Rules of Court; See Trinidad v. U.S. 11 Phil. 659 (1908); Montecillo v. Gica, 60 SCRA
234 (1974); Sebastian v. Ceniza, 87 SCRA 244 (1978).
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
 Without regulation, some lawyers, not all, may tend to be lax with the
responsibility that he has or worse, use lawyering for evil motives. A disciplinary action
is premised on the assumption that members of the bar should be competent,
honorable and reliable, persons in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. 6 A
proceeding for disbarment is instituted to ascertain if a lawyer, in view of the imputed
misconduct, still possesses those qualifications which are conditions precedent for the
continuous practice of law.7

Moreover, disciplinary proceedings are instituted and sanctions imposed against

erring lawyers in order to deter others from similar misconduct and as indication to the
public that the courts will maintain the ethical standards of the profession. 8 In a higher
sense, the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer is intended to protect the court and the
public from the misbehavior of its officers, 9 safeguard the administration of justice from
incompetence and dishonesty of lawyers, 10 and preserve the purity of the legal
profession by removing from its ranks those who have shown to be unfit and unworthy
to remain in it.11 In that way, the people will be assured of the quality and competence of
its lawyers.

As much as people’s rights need to be protected, the rights of lawyers should

likewise be guarded. As such, the power of the court to discipline lawyers should not be
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner. Neither should it be exercised at the
pleasure of the court or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility. It is the duty of the
court to exercise and regulate its disciplinary power by a sound and just judicial
discretion, whereby the rights and independence of the bar may be scrupulously
guarded and maintained by the court as the rights and dignity of the court itself.12

Footnotes:
6
Daroy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304 (1975).
7
In re Paraiso, 41 Phil. 24 (1920); Siero v. Infante, 73 SCRA 35 (1976); In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562
(1970).
8
“See Justice Malcolm’s Concurring Opinion, In re Sotto, 38 532, 350 (118); Calo v. Degano, 20 SCRA
1162 (1967).
9
De Jesus-Paras v. Vailcoses, 111 Phil. 569 (1961); In re Montagne & Domin- guez, 3 Phil. 577 (1904); In
re MacDougall
10
Deles v. Aragano, Jr., 27 SCRA 633; Noriega v. Sison, 125 SCRA 293 (1983).
11
In re Almacen,; Sierto v. Infante; Tejan v. Cusi, Jr., 57 SCRA 154 (1974); In re Almacen,; Hernandez v.
Villanueva, 40 Phil. 775 (1920).
12
Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9 (1856); In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970).
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-

GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE

 Lawyers cannot simply be suspended or disbarred merely because of groundless
allegations. Broadly speaking, the grounds for disbarment or suspension of a lawyer
consist of those acts of misconduct committed before and after his admission to
practice. The acts of misconduct prior to admission include those which indicate that at
the time the lawyer took his oath he did not possess the required qualifications for
membership in the bar, such as good moral character, citizenship, completion of the
educational requirements and passing the bar examinations. Anything which shows that
he has none of any of these qualifications will justify cancellation of his license. 13

On the other hand, the grounds for suspension or disbarment based on acts
committed after the lawyer’s admission to the bar are those which cause loss of moral
character on his part or involve violation of his duties to the court, to his client, to the
legal profession and to the public. They include deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in
office, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, grossly immoral conduct, violation
of the lawyer’s oath, willful disobedience of lawful order of the court, corruptly appearing
as a lawyer for a party without authority to do so and solicitation of cases at law for the
purpose of gain either personally or through paid agents or brokers. 14 These statutory
grounds are so broad as to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity.15

Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for
disbarment or suspension, as follows:
SEC. 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 any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to
practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

Footnotes:
13
Lim v. Antonio, 41 SCRA 44 (1971); Soberano v. Villanueva, 6 SCRA 891
(1962) ; Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 (1957); In re Quilala, G.R. Bar Master SBC-591, December
1,1977.
14
“Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court; Rule 7.03, Code of Professional Responsibility; NBI v. Reyes, 326
15
SCRA 109 (2000). In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 567 (1923).
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
 The enumeration of the statutory grounds for suspension or disbarment of a
lawyer is not exclusive.16 A lawyer may be removed from office or suspended from the
practice of law on grounds other than those specifically provided in the law. 17 For settled
is the rule that the statutory enumeration of the grounds for disciplinary actions
constitutes no limitation on the general power of the Supreme Court to suspend or
disbar lawyers.18

A lawyer may be disbarred for misrepresentation of or false pretense relative to

the requirements for admission to practice. In other words, the fact that a lawyer lacked
any of the qualifications for membership in the bar at the time he took his oath is a
ground for his disbarment.19 The circumstance that the court went over his
qualifications and found him to have met them before it admitted him to practice does
not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question
concerning his mental or moral fitness to become member of the bar.20 The reason is
that his admission to practice merely creates a refutable presumption that he has all the
qualifications to become a lawyer.

A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for conviction of a crime involving moral

turpitude or for gross immorality committed before admission, such as living
adulterously with a woman21 or contracting a second marriage while his first marriage
remains valid and subsisting.22 For his act shows that his representation at the time he
applied for admission that he is of good moral character is false. Similarly, a lawyer may
also be removed from office for failure to complete the prescribed course of legal study
in the regular course. If by concealment of such fact he is permitted to take, and he
passes, the bar examinations, his passing the bar examinations will not validate his
admission, completion of the educational requirements in the regular manner being
equally important as a prerequisite to admission. 23 And a lawyer’s license to practice,
which is reserved exclusively to Filipino citizens, may be revoked upon a showing that
the licensee is in fact an alien.24

Footnotes:
16
“Rayong v. Oblena, supra; Mortel v. Aspiras, 100 Phil. 586 (1956).
17
Bolivar v. De Leon, 50 O.G. 583 (January 28,1954); Mortel v. Aspiras, supra.
18
In re Puno, 19 SCRA 429 (1967).
19
Cf. In re Diao, 7 SCRA 475 (1963); Lim v. Antonio, 41 SCRA 44 (1971).
20
Soberano v. Villanueva, 6 SCRA 851 (1962).
21
“Rayong v. Oblena, 7 SCRA 859 (1963).
22 23
Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 (1957). “Diao v. Martinez, 7 SCRA 475 (1963).
24
Cf. Lim v. Antonio, 41 SCRA 44 (1971); In re Quilala, G.R. Bar Matter — SBC-591, December 1, 1977.
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
 Since a lawyer enjoys the presumption that he has all the required qualifications
for membership in the bar at the time he took his oath of office, two important requisites
must concur before he may be suspended or disbarred for misconduct committed
before his admission. The first is that the act imputed to him must be so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.25 And the second requisite is that the act charged must be established by a
clearly preponderant evidence.26

A lawyer may likewise be suspended or disbarred for misconduct relating to his

admission to practice that puts his moral and mental fitness in grave doubt or for
fraudulent passing of the bar examination. Thus, a lawyer had been removed from office
for securing an unauthorized revaluation of his answers to the bar examination
questions or for cheating in the bar examinations 27 even though he had been acquitted
of the criminal charge arising therefrom. For the standards of the legal profession are
not met by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalty of the law. 28 And a
lawyer who made a false statement in his application for admission by stating that he
had not been charged with an offense when in fact he had been so indicted for slight
physical injury, had been removed from office. While the crime of slight physical injury,
in this particular instance, may not involve moral turpitude which by itself does not
warrant disciplinary action, it is not his having been charged with that offense but his
having knowingly failed to disclose such fact, which thereby shows him to be morally
unprincipled, that makes him unfit to continue the practice of law. 29

The rule is that a Philippine lawyer may practice law only in the country. He may,
however, be admitted to the bar in a foreign country, where he practice law in both
countries. If he commits a misconduct outside Philippine jurisdiction, which is also a
ground for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in
this country. 30

Footnotes:
25
Soberano v. Villanueva, 6 SCRA 891 (1962); Villasanta v. Peralta, 101 Phil. 313 (1957).
26
“See Lim v. Antonio, supra.
27
In re Lanuevo, 66 SCRA 245 (1975).
28
7re re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 (1928).
29
In re Lanuevo, supra.; See also Calo v. Degano, 20 SCRA 447 (1967).
30
Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
BREACH OF DUTIES TO COURT

An attorney is an officer of the court whose obligations to the court are more
significant and important than his obligations to his clients. 31 He may be admonished,
censured, fined, suspended or disbarred for breach of his duties to the court that affects
his professional integrity, his obligations as a lawyer or his fitness as an officer of the
court.32 The following are acts wherein a lawyer breaches his duties to the court:
obstructing justice and abuse of legal process, misleading the court, forum shopping,
preferring false charges, introducing false evidence, blackmail; violation of Canon 19,
willfully disobeying court orders and disrespect to court, using vicious or disrespectful
language, and continuing to practice after suspension. 33

BREACH OF DUTIES TO CLIENT

A lawyer owes his client the duty of entire devotion to his genuine interest,
undivided allegiance, loyalty, fidelity and absolute integrity. Gross violation of such duty
subjects the lawyer to disciplinary action. 34 The following are acts wherein a lawyer
breaches his duties to the client: negligence in the performance of duties, ignorance of
law of lawyer as ground for discipline, employment of unlawful means, deceit or
misrepresentation, representing adverse interests and revealing client’s secrets,
purchasing client’s property in litigation, failing to account or misappropriating client’s
property, collecting unreasonable fees, acting without authority, and willfully appearing
without being retained.35

BREACH OF DUTIES TO THE BAR

A lawyer may be disciplined for gross violation of the canons of the legal
profession36 or for unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct is that which violates
the rules or ethical code of the legal profession or which is unbecoming of a member of
the bar.37 A lawyer who fails to live up to the canons of the profession in a manner that
casts serious doubt upon his moral fitness to remain member of the bar commits a
misconduct sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him. 38

Footnotes:
31
“Cantome v. Ducasin, 57 Phil. 23 (1932); Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291
32
“/n re Almacen, supra.; Montecillo v. Gica, 60 SCRA 234 (1974).
33 34
Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009) In re Oliva, 103 Phil. 312 (1958); In re Carmen, 41 Phil. 899 (1920).
35 36
Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009) Cf. Daroy v. Legaspi, 65 SCRA 304 (1975).
37 38
Tan Tek Beng v. David, 126 SCRA 389 (1983). Lazaro v. Sagun, 78 SCRA 100; (1977); In re Sotto, 38 Phil. 532
(1918). -Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
 The following are acts wherein a lawyer breaches his duties to the bar: defaming
fellow lawyers, communicating with adverse party, encroaching upon business of
another, soliciting business, advertising, cooperating in illegal practice of law, and
nonpayment of IBP dues.39

OTHER GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE

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.40 Where, however, the misconduct outside of the
lawyer’s professional dealings is so gross a character as to show him to be morally unfit
for the office and unworthy of the privilege which his license and the law confer on him,
the court may be justified in suspending or removing him from the office of attorney. 41
Other grounds for the discipline of lawyers are gross immorality, conviction of crime
involving moral turpitude, promoting to violate or violating penal laws, misconduct in the
discharge of duties as a public officer, commission of fraud or falsehood, and
misconduct as notary public. The act of not paying a just debt and issuing bouncing
check are grounds for disciplinary complaint as well. 41

JURISPRUDENCE

Deceit. A lawyer was subjected to disciplinary action for selling a non-disposable

land of the public domain. He violated his oath not to do falsehood and
misrepresentation to the buyer-complainant.42 For a lawyer to be dealt with by the
Supreme Court, the transaction entered into need not be in the performance of
professional services. It can be in his private capacity. Professional honesty and honor
are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and dishonor in other
relations.43

Footnotes:
39
Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)
40
In re Pelaez, 44 Phil. 569 (1923).
41
In re Sotto, 38 Phil. 532 (1918); In re Pelaez, supra.; Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 (1933);
Manolo v. Gan, 93 Phil. 292 (1953) Jesena v. Onasa, 126 SCRA 385
(1983) ; Melendez v. Decena, 176 SCRA 662 (1989).
41
Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)
42
A.C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005.
43
Lao vs. Medel, 405 SCRA 227 [2003]
-Legal and Judicial Ethics (Agpalo, 2009)-
 Malpractice. A lawyer violated the trust and confidence of the client when he
represented conflicting interest. He represented the creditors when his accounting firm
prepared and computed the claims of the creditors while his law firm represented the
estate.44

Conflict of interest. A lawyer has to disclose to his client all the circumstances
of his relations to the parties in connection with the controversy which might influence
the client in the selection of counsel. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting
interests except by express consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the
facts.45

Grossly immoral conduct. The wife complained that her husband was a
philanderer, having illicit relationship with two women. He was disbarred. A lawyer must
demonstrate that he or she has good moral character and should behave in accordance
with the standards.46

Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty could

accomplish the end desired; hence, the penalty of two years suspension was more
appropriate. A lawyer got married again after his failed marriage. He never absconded
his obligations to his first wife and child. After the annulment of his second marriage, he
remained celibate. He was humble enough to offer no defense save for his lone and
declaration of his commitment to his wife and child. 47

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. A lawyer was disbarred for

having been convicted of estafa. 48 A lawyer was convicted of the crime of bribery. He
was disbarred.49

Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath. In his motion, the lawyer stated: The judgment
is an “abhorrent nullity”, “legal monstrosity”, “horrendous mistake”, “horrible error”, “an
insult to the judiciary”, and “an anachronism in the judicial process”. The lawyer was
suspended. The language exceeded the vigor required of a lawyer to defend ably his
client’s cause.50

Footnotes:
44 45
Nakpil vs. Atty. Carlos J. Valdes March 4, 1998. (Pormento vs. Pontevedra, March 31, 2005)
46
Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes A.C. No. 6488, September 22, 2004
47(
Conjuangco vs. Palma, 438 SCRA 306; 462 SCRA 310 [2005]).
48
In Re: Dalmacio delos Angeles, 106 Phil. 1
49
In the Matter of Disbarment Proceedings vs. Narciso Jaranillo, 101 Phil. 323
50
Judge Ubaldino Larucon vs. Atty. Ellis Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006
 Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam.. A lawyer who
was suspended from the practice of law abroad may likewise be sanctioned in the
Philippines for infraction he committed abroad. 51

Willfully appearing as attorney for any party without authority. A lawyer was
suspended from the practice of law in appearing for a party defendant without authority.
52
A judge may require a lawyer to prove that he is authorized to appear for a client.

Although a lawyer may be reinstated after being disbarred, he must be

responsible and cautious enough not to be disbarred in the first place. He must always
uphold the dignity of lawyers and of the legal profession. He should also perform to the
best of his knowledge and ability the four-fold duties of a lawyer to society, to the legal
profession, to the court, and to the client.

Footnotes:
51
(Velez vs. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006).
52
Porac Trucking Corp. vs. CA, 202 SCRA 674; Garrido vs. Quisumbing, 28 SCRA 614
 Term Paper
in
Legal Techniques
and Logic

Submitted by:
Jean Aristonet W. Leyson
Student

Submitted to:
Atty. Phoebeth S. Peras
Professor