Jennica Gyrl Delfin

SET A

1. Covid Rose filed a complaint against Atty. Covid Bryant for

disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
gross immorality and gross misconduct. Commissioner Juan Dela
Cruz directed respondent Atty. Bryant to submit an answer within
ten days from notice. However, Atty. Bryant failed to file an answer.
Thereafter, relying solely on the allegations in the complaint
without conducting further investigations, Commissioner Dela
Cruz submitted to the IBP a report recommending the indefinite
suspension of Atty. Bryant.
Is the action of Commissioner Dela Cruz proper?

Answer:

No, the action of Commissioner Dela Cruz is not proper since

Atty Bryant has fifteen days to submit his answer.

The law provides that if the complaint against a lawyer is

meritorious, he shall be served with a copy of it and shall be
required to answer within fifteen days from service.

In this case, Atty. Bryant was not given due process. He was
not given ample time to defend himself or to submit his answers.
Only in cases when in spite of notice, the lawyer fails to answer, or
to appear to defend himself, may the investigator proceed ex parte.
Commisioner Dela Cruz proceeded with the submission of his
recommendation of suspension without giving Atty. Bryant the
opportunity to defend himself. Disbarment and suspension of a
lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should
be imposed with great caution and only in those cases where the
misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of
the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.

Thus, the action of Commisioner Dela Cruz is not proper.

2. Atty. Silo charged Hasny P10, 000.00 for filing fees pertaining to
the complaint filed in court. He actually spent only P1, 000.00. He
did not account for the balance. A disbarment case was filed by
Hasny against Atty. Silo. The complaint was assigned by the IBP
Boards of Governors to an investigator for appropriate action.
However, supported by affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the circumstances, the IBP Board of Governors, as
recommended by the investigator, decided to dismiss the
disbarment case against Atty. Silo.

May the IBP Board of Governors dismiss the disbarment case

referred by the Supreme Court?

Answer:

Yes, the IBP Board of Governors may dismiss the disbarment

cases referred by the Supreme Court.
The law provides that proceedings for disbarment, suspension or
discipline of attorneys may be taken by the:
a. Supreme Court motu proprio; or
b. Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon a verified complaint
by any person or upon referral by the Supreme Court.
The IBP may initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring
attorneys. If the IBP finds the lawyer guilty, it shall issue a
resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and
record. If the IBP’s decision if for exoneration, of if the sanction is
less than suspension or dismissal, it shall issue a decision
exonerating the lawyer of imposing a lesser sanction. The
resolution exonerating the lawyer shall be considered as
terminating the case unless upon petition of the complainant or
other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen
days from the notice of the Board’s decision.

Thus, the IBP may dismiss the disbarment cases referred by

the Supreme Court.

3. After passing the Philippine Bar in 1996, Corona Vee practice

law until 2004 when he migrated to California where he
subsequently became an American citizen in 2008. As he kept
abreast of legal developments, petitioner learned about the
Citizenship retention and Re- acquisition Act of 2003 (RA 9225),
pursuant to which he reacquired his Philippine citizenship in 2006.
He took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen at the Philippine
embassy of Los Angeles, California. Jaded by the laid back life in
the outback, he returned to the Philippines in December 2018. After
the holidays, he established his own law office and resumed his
practice of law. Months later, a concerned woman who had secured
copies of Atty. Corona’s naturalization papers with consular
authentication, filed with the Supreme Court an anonymous
complaint against him for illegal practice of law.
May the Supreme Court act upon the complaint filed by an
anonymous person? Explain.

Answer:

Yes, the Supreme Court may act upon the complaint filed by
an anonymous person.

The law provides that the complaint may be initiated by any

person. The complaint must state clearly and distinctly the facts
complained of, supported by affidavits of persons having personal
knowledge of the circumstances alleged, six copies of the complaint
filed with the IBP Secretary, and it must be verified.

In one case, the court explained that an anonymous complaint

is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an
unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always
justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for
such complaint may be easy of verification and may without much
difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent
evidence.

Thus, provided that the allegations of the complainant are not

vague, the Supreme Court may act upon an anonymous complaint.

4. Bella administratively charged her former lawyer, Atty. Boom-

boom, with gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law for the
latter's inadequate legal representation of her in her suit against
her neighbor. Midway during the investigation, Beth decided to
migrate to Australia. Learning about her plans, Atty. Boom-boom
approached her and pleaded for her understanding. He was able to
persuade her to execute an affidavit of desistance in respect of her
administrative complaint. When such was submitted, respondent
moved to dismiss the charge against him.

If you were to decide the case, will you grant or deny the motion?
Explain your answer.

Answer:

I will deny the motion to dismiss.

It is a well settled principle that the desistance or withdrawal

of the complainant of the charges against a judge/lawyer does not
deprive the court of the authority to proceed to determine the
matter. Nor does it necessarily result in the dismissal of the
complaint except when, as a consequence of the withdrawal or
desistance no evidence is adduced to prove the charges.

In this case, the investigation was already midway. The

investigation which already started will only be put to waste. Thus,
a motion to dismiss is only proper.

5. A case for disbarment was filed by Mr. Locke Dawnne, petitioner,

against certain Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce, respondent, for allegedly
gross immorality, malpractice, and gross misconduct.

The Investigating Commissioner’s Consolidated Report and

Recommendation ended that the charges against Respondent Atty.
Sauchalle Distaunce should be suspended from the practice of law
for the period of three (3) years from receipt of the order with a
warning that similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

The IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution adopting and

approving the Investigating Commissioner’s Consolidated Report
and Recommendation.

Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce filed with the Court a Petition for

Review, which questioned the IBP resolutions.

Is the recourse of Atty. Sauchalle Distaunce correct?

Answer:

Yes, the recourse of Atty Sauchalle Distaunce is correct.

The law provides that the decision of the Board of Governors

may be reviewed by the Supreme Court which must be in writing
supported by facts and evidence presented during the hearing and
the applicable provision of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In this case, Atty Sauchalle Distaunce may ask recourse

before the Supreme Court and may file before it a Petition for
Review questioning the resolutions of the IBP provided that she
must submit in writing evidences submitted during the hearing and
laws under the Code of Professional Conduct that may be deemed
applicable to her case.

Thus, Atty Atty Sauchalle Distaunce’s recourse is correct.