Table of Contents ts er) A 2 a w 15 iTS i 18 or Disciplinary Proceedings against Judges and Justices ecu ee neon Rea a eee ar gare ae Pate cs aR el Nea Re Pan Eee CURLS ere etre i) eee Rd Cnet tees) een Magee Judicial Integrity Board (IB) eT MRC Mirsada) Where and Whom the Proceedings may be instituted erie eee eee ae eed un CUR a ad eR AE ee ry Dea an Peed emer eT eel Ue cdTable of Contents Il. Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lawyers SR Ciera Rec casino eae ee ae a Geo ae Cee Cee a ere Ca ree aa coe as CS aT Ce) Tasca Ill, Judicial Clemency and Reinstatement in the Practice of Law SMe eRe taut POO ts] ea PRT) Peet Caceres eke aay Perce aCe ruS ane eco Judicial Clemency Involving Lawyers Copa Matters Taken into Consideration for Reinstatement iracag sere ten ry PCS uaDISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUSTICE: UNDER RULE 140, RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED BY AM. NO. 01-8-10-SC INITIATION OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES By virtue of the long-standing practice, the Supreme Court has assigned complaint against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial judges to an Executive judge, against Regional Trial Courts judges to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. For a complaint filed against a member of the Court of Appeals, it will be assigned to a member of the Supreme Court for investigation, report, and recommendation.! A disciplinary case against a judge or justice brought before the Court is an administrative proceeding, wherein technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, It must be noted that what must be afforded in an administrative due process is the opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of MANNER OF FILING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 140, RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED BY A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC 1. Motu proprio by the SC; 2. Verified complaint, accompanied by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by such other documents that may substantiate said allegations; and 3. Anonymous complaint, accompanied by public records of indubitable integrity. In one of the jurisprudence decided by the Supreme Court it stated that disciplinary proceedings against judges and justices may be instituted under either of three ways: (1) by the Supreme Court motu proprio; (2) upon a verified complaint; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity, * Additionally, a verified complaint must be supported by affidavit of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged or by documents which may substantiate the allegations, also, an anonymous complaint must be supported by public records of indubitable integrity. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT In Anonymous complaint vs. Presiding Judge Exequil L. Dagala, A.M. No, MTJ-16- 1886, July 25, 2017, the Supreme Court held that anonymous complaints should always * SC Circular No, 3-89, February 6, 1989, # Anonymous complaint vs. Presiding Judge Exequil L. Dagala A.M. No, MITI-16-1886, July 25, 2017 > Section 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No. 01-8-10-SC ‘Re: Anonymaus letter-complaint with attached pictures against Associate Justice Normandi 8. Pizarro, Court of Appeals, AM. No, 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018.be treated with great caution, the anonymity of the complaint does not itself, justify its outright dismissal. Thus, the Court shall act on an anonymous complaint without the need of corroboration of evidence to be offered by the complainant whose identity and integrity could hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest so long as the allegations can be reliably verified and properly substantiated by competent evidence such as those public records with indubitable integrity. INSTITUTION OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES BY VERIFIED COMPLAINT UNDER RULE 140, RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED BY A.M, NO. 01-8-10-SC ‘As mentioned in Section 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court, one of the ways of instituting a disciplinary proceeding against Judges and Justices is the filing of the verified complaint, also, aside from the filing of such verified complaint, it must be accompanied by affidavits of persons who have the personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, moreover, in order to properly institute disciplinary charges against a member of the bench, the complainant must follow the set of rules listed below as provided by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC: 1. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges; 2, The complaint must be sufficient in form and substance; 3. A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the respondent and he shall be required to comment within a period of ten (10) days from the date of service;” 4, The Supreme Court shall refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation or assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation; 5. A hearing shall be set by the investigating Justice or Judge and notice thereof shall be given to both parties; 6. The parties may present oral and documentary evidence during hearing, and if the respondent fails to appear on the hearing, the investigation shall proceed ex parte;!0 7. The investigation shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from the date of its commencement or within such extension by the Investigating Justice or Judge;!! * Section 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. ® Section 2, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No, 01-8-10-SC ” Section 2, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. ® Section 3, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No, 01-8-10-SC ® Section 4, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC Section 4, Rule 140, Rules of Cour, as amended by A.M, No. 01-8-10-SC, Section 4, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No. 01-8-10-SC.8 Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the investigating Justice or Judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a report of its findings of fact and recommendation;!? and 9, The Supreme Court shall take action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant. It must be noted that the complaint will be dismissed if there is failure on the part of the complainant to comply with the sufficiency requirement of the verified complaint in form and substance, if the copy is not served to the respondent and there is no comment filed by the respondent within a period of ten (10) days from the date of service, Also, for the purposes of evaluation, report and recommendation, the Supreme Court shall refer the matter to the Office of Court Administrator or assign the case for investigation, repot and recommendation to the following: A. To a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; or B. To a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a Judge of the Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank; or C. Toa Judge of the Regional ‘Trial Court, if the respondent is a Judge of an inferior court? Note: An amendment of the rules on disciplinary proceedings against members of the bench was passed through A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC and will be thoroughly discussed in this paper. KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES ‘As mentioned in Section 7, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No. 01- 8-10SC, administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light charges. Serious charges are those mentioned under Section 8, less serious charges are those mentioned in Section 9, and light charges are those mentioned in Section 10, all under Rule 140, Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. Under s serious charges: .ction 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the following are considered as 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law; 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; 4, Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding; 5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; section 5, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No. 01-8-10-SC. * section 3, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court; 8. Immorality 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; 10. Partisan political activities; and 11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits. Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the following are considered as less serious charges: 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records ofa case; Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness; Unauthorized practice of law; Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized bylaw; 6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and 7. Simple misconduct. vee Under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the following are considered as light charges: 1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct; 2. Gambling in public; 3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and 4, Undue delay in the submission of monthly rentals, QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED Administrative charges against members of the judiciary must be supported by substantial evidence and not by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is any relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In Ever Emporium, Inc. vs. Judge Maceda, A.M. Nos. RTJ-04-1881 and RTJ- 04-1882, October 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required in order to establish the respondent's malfeasance is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but rather a substantial evidence. Thus, ifa respondent judge or court employee should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. The burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to present sufficient evidence to support his or her accusation against the member of the bench.!#The complainant Ong vs. Rosete, AM. No. 04-1538, October 22, 2004, 41 SCRA 150.should not rely on mere conjectures and suppositions, but rather, it must present evidence that is relevant enough that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion for such complaint be not dismissed for lack of merit. In Regidor Gutierrez vs. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2118, June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for the failure of the complainant to present substantial evidence to prove his allegations. The Supreme Court also noted that it could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench, by pronouncing guilt or mere speculation. Given that there is no basis to impose sanctions upon the respondent Judge, the case shall be dismissed for lack of merit. LIABILITIES OF A JUDGE In order to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary and to free the Judge from any apprehension of personal consequences to himself, a Judge shall not be administratively, civilly, or criminally liable when he acts within his given powers and jurisdiction even though such acts may be considered erroneous. However, the exceptions to the non-liability ofa Judge are: 1. When the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill- will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice; or 2, When there is gross ignorance of law, where there must be proof of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.15 PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD ‘An administrative complaint against a member of the bar who was subsequently appointed as a Judge does not prescribe, As held in the case of Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Santos, AM, No, RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004, an administrative complaint filed only after twentyfour years after the offending act was committed, is not barred by prescription, Even the lapse of a considerable time, it will not erase the administrative culpability of such person. ‘The reason for the imprescriptibly for an administrative complaint filed against the member of the bench is that the members of the bar who became a Judge or Justice would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for it, also, this is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter form committing acts which would violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers oath.16 + Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Hon. Mupas, AIM, No. RTJ-20-2593, November 10, 2020, Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004,It is therefore clear that the filing of an administrative complaint against the erring members of the bench and bar is imprescriptible in order to avoid the Judge, Justices or Lawyers from escaping the disciplining arm of the Court. CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of the Court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator.” UNDER A.M. NO. 18-01-05-SC ‘The Supreme Court en banc issued a resolution through A.M. No, 18-01-05-SC, thereby approving the recommendation of the Technical Working Group to amend Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, subject to the following modifications under Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, 9,11 & 12 of the said rule. JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BOARD (JIB) AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE (CPIO) ‘The old provisions of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 01- 8110-SC does not provide any special office, The office assigned to resolved the complaint is vested before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) or the Judges or Justices who is involved in the said investigation. Now, by virtue of the said amendment, it created two offices and these are the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office (CPI0). The JIB is tasked to receive and resolve complaints against Justices, Judges and Court Personnel and may also conduct formal investigation as the case may be. The JIB shall be composed of a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and three (3) Members who shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years without re-appointment.!8 All complaints, whether verified and supported by affidavits, or anonymous and supported by public records will be lodged before the JIB; while complaints involving graft and corruption and violation of ethical standards shall be referred before the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards. ‘The CPIO is tasked to conduct investigation and/or intelligence, surveillance, or entrapment operations or lifestyle check to detect and identify the Justices, Judges and Court personnel. The office is also tasked to conduct, on order or upon prior authority of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the JIB, discreet investigations or surveillance or entrapment operations on Justices, Judges, and Court personnel who are subjects of anonymous or unverified complaints or agencies to be 2 section 12, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC. * Section 3, A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC.involved in any mentioned acts in the said law. Lastly, the office is also mandated to submit its reports and recommendations to the Chief Justice or to the Supreme Court or to the JIB19 MANNER OF INSTITUTING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER A.M. NO. 18-01- 05-SC 1. Motu proprio by the SC; 2. Verified complaint; and 3. Anonymous complaint. For the institution of disciplinary proceedings by way of a verified complaint, it must be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged and also accompanied by documents which may substantiate said allegations, Also, the said verified complaint must be in writing, clearly and concisely stating the acts and omissions constituting the administrative offense under Section 22, 23, 24 and also the violations of the standards prescribed for Judges, the Rules of Court and the amendments thereof or the Code of Judicial Conduct the New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary or Issuances or Resolutions of the Supreme Court,2? On the other hand, if the complainant chose to file an anonymous complaint, it must be supported by public records of indubitable integrity where the material averments may easily be verified, and may be substantiated and established by other competent evidence. WHERE AND WHOM THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED Under the old provisions of Rule 140, disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against Judges of regular courts and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.% Such disciplinary proceedings may be instituted before the Regional Trial Court if the respondent is a Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court, to the Court of Appeals if the respondent is a Judge of the Regional Trial Court, and to the Supreme Court if the complaint is against a member of the Court of Appeals. Also, the disciplinary proceedings may be referred to before the Office of the Court Administrator 22 Now, under A.M, No, 18-01-05-SC, disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against Justices of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals; Judges and Court personnel of lower courts including Sharia’ Courts; and Officials and Employees of the Office of the Jurisconsult, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Section 9, AIM. No 18-01-05. ® Section 2, AM. No 18-01-05-SC. Section 1, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M, No. 01-8-10-SC. ® SC Circular No. 3-89, February 6, 1989,Administrator, Assistant Court Administrator and their personnel before the Judicial Integrity Board. RESOLUTION OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS ‘The investigating Justice or Judge shall terminate the investigation within ninety (90) days and shall have a period of thirty (30) days to submit before the Supreme Court a report containing findings of fact and recommendation.? Under the present amendment, the JIB shall resolve the disciplinary action on the basis of the pleadings, documents or papers or public or court records and or document or papers and shall submit its decision to the Supreme Court within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the said documents, However, ifitis based on the pleadings and there is a prima facie case against the respondents, but substantial factual issues are raised, the JIB shall recommend to the Supreme Court that the case be considered and docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the JIB be directed to conduct formal investigations and also to submit a report and recommendation to the Supreme Court within a period of sixty (60) days from the termination of such investigation.* IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS * | IMPEACHMENT Impeachment refers to the power of Congress to remove a public official for serious crimes or misconduct as provided in the Constitution. It is also designed to remove the impeachable officer from office, not to punish him, No legally actionable liability attaches to the public officer by a mere judgment of impeachment against him or her, and thus lies the necessity of a separate conviction for charges that must be properly filed with courts of law.25 * GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE BY IMPEACHMENT The President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office by impeachment for and conviction of: 1. Culpable violation of the Constitution; 2. Treason; 3. Bribery; Sections 4 and 5, Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No, O1-8-10-SC. 2% Section 12, AM. No 18-01-05-SC. 2% Re: Letters of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona requesting the grant of retirement and other benefits to the late former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and her claim far survivorship pension as his wife under Republic Act No, 9946, A.M. No, 20-07-10, January 12, 2021.4. Graft and Corruption; 5. Other high crimes; or 6. Betrayal of public trust.2* All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment, However, those mentioned in Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, they may only be removed from office by impeachment, in the matter of the charges of plagiarism, etc, against Associate Justice Mariano C, Del Castillo, AM, No 10-0717-SC, February 8, 2011, the Supreme Court noted that what the impeachment provisions of the Constitution guarantee is simply the right to be removed from office only through the process of impeachment and not by any other means; it does not preclude the imposition of disciplinary sanctions short of removal on the impeachable official. Impeachment is the sole means of removal, but it is certainly not the sole means of disciplining Members of the Supreme Court or, for that matter, public officials removable by impeachment. ‘Thus, it is clear from wordings of the Supreme Court that with respect to the removal from office, the officials mentioned by Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution may be removed only from their office by virtue of impeachment. However, in cases when the purpose is to discipline the Members of the Supreme Court, there are other modes aside from the impeachment from their public position, * QUO WARRANTO AND IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS Quo warranto and impeachment are two distinct proceedings. Quo warranto grants the relief of ouster while impeachment affords the removal from office, A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a person's right or title to a public office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment. Itis filed to question the eligibility or validity of the appointment of the said public officer. While impeachment is a political process undertaken by the legislature to determine whether the public officer committed any of the impeachable offenses, namely, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of trust2? One of the issues raised in the May 11, 2018 decision of the Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno is whether or not Sereno who is an impeachable officer can be a respondent in a quo warranto proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. However, this was countered by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio stating that it is erroneous and thus voted against the quo warranto proceedings. Justice Carpio posts that Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution clearly mandates that the removal shall only be by way of impeachment. The Constitution only allows the House to impeach and the Senate to convicts. To permit the quo warranto petition is to re- ® section 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution, » Republic of the Pilippines vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018,write the Constitution which is clearly, the violation of the latter. Justice Carpio insist that the misrepresentation done by Sereno on the material matters at the time of her application for office such as the failure to file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth is an issue of integrity which is considered as a betrayal of public trust which is covered by one of the grounds of impeachment as provided by the Supreme Court. Thus, the matter shall be referred to the Congress who has the exclusive mandate to remove from office impeachable officers. Despite the opinion of Senior Associate Justice Carpio and other dissenters, majority of the members of the Supreme Court ruled that the quo warranto proceeding is valid as quo warranto and impeachment cases can proceed independently and simultaneously as there is nothing in the Constitution that says that impeachable officers are immune, exempted, or excluded from quo warranto proceedings when the very issue to be determined therein is the status of an officer as such. Also, it was maintained that while impeachment concerns actions that make the officer unfit to continue exercising his or her office, quo warranto involves matters that render him or her ineligible to hold position the position to begin with. Quo warranto and impeachment proceedings are not mutually exclusive remedies and may proceed simultaneously and the existence of other remedies against the usurper does not prevent the State from commencing a quo warranto proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court held that Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of quo warranto proceedings against an impeachable officer. * PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION One of the disciplinary proceedings that may be instituted against a sitting Judge or Justice is by way of motu proprio by the Supreme Court as provided under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Thus, pursuant to its own initiative, the Supreme Court has the power to discipline members of the bench, However, the Supreme Court also has the power to order for the preventive suspension of an erring member of the bench. As mentioned in the case of Office of the Court Administrator vs. Presiding Judge Joseph Ruiz, A.M, RTJ-13-2361, February 02, 2016, the Supreme Court held that they possess the power to preventively suspend an administratively charged Judge until a final decision is reached, particularly when a serious charge is involved and a strong likelihood of guilt exist. This power is a preventive measure to shield the public from any further damage that the continued exercise by the Judge of the functions of his office may cause, It must be noted that the preventive suspension imposed is not a penalty but rather it is only a preventive measure as it does not violate the right of the erring member of the bench to be presumed innocent. DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR ‘The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur or the thing or the transaction speaks for itself means that where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management 10of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care,?# In Re: Petition for the dismissal from service and/or disbarment of Judge Baltazar R. Dizon, AM. No. 3086, May 3, 1989, the Supreme Court stated that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not except or dispense with the necessity of proving the facts on which the inference of evil intent is based. It merely expresses the clear and reasonable conclusion that when such facts are admitted or are already shown by the record, and no credible explanation that would negative the strong inference of evil intent is forthcoming, no further hearing to establish them to support a judgment as to the culpability of a respondent is necessary. It is clear from the foregoing that even without formal investigation, a Judge may be dismissed if his liability is clear and unquestionable based on the records submitted. In the absence of an explanation made by the Judge, it will result as a support to a judgement as to his culpability even in the absence of a hearing, GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES ‘The grounds for the discipline of Judges are simple misconduct and inefficiency.?? Serious misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. If the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule is present, then gross misconduct shall be imposed. In the absence of those mentioned elements, the person charged shall only be liable for simple misconducts° For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence of showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. On the other hand, Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness, Itis said that a judge would be inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that diligence, prudence, and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service.®2 * Dr. Femando Solidum vs. People of the Philippines, 6.8. No. 192123, March 10, 2014. ® section 173, Revised Administrative Code. ® Commission Elections vs. Bai Mamalinta, G.R. No. 226622, March 14, 2017. In re impeachment of Honorable Antonio Horrilleno, Judge of First Instance of the Twenty-sisth Judicial Distrit, 043 Phi 212, March 20, 1922. ® Nenita De Vera Suroza vs. Judge Reynaldo Honrado, A.M. No. 2026-CFI, December 19, 1981, ulII. DISCIPLINARY PROC! NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS 1. SUI GENERIS - Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, Le, they belong to a class. of their own. They are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit but are rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. It is not meant to grant relief to a complaint but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and courts. 2, NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCIPTION ~ Administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. 3. JUDICIAL IN NATURE - In line with its Constitutional mandate to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, and the integrated Bar, and by virtue of its power to discipline members of the bar under Sec 11 Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court is authorized to impose disciplinary action against lawyers, including suspension or disbarment. The proceedings are thus judicial in nature. In the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his accusations as an officer of the court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession. The Supreme Court likewise aims to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities. 4, MOTU PROPRIO - Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings. The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the proof of failure of proof of the charges.*° 5, COMPLAINANT NOT INDISPENSABLE * Tiong vs. Florendo, A.C. No. 4428, December 12, 2011. % pengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2032. 5 Figueras v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014. 26 7. 8 CONFIDENTIAL PENALTY CANNOT BE IN THE ALTERNATI NOT SUBJECT TO PRESCIPTION - Administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe, The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. Otherwise, members of the bar would only be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.2® POWER TO DISCIPLINE ERRANT LAWYERS. Rule 138, Section 27 ‘The Supreme Court has the full authority and power to: Warn; Admonish; Reprimand; Suspend; and Disbar a lawyer (WARDS), Rule 138, Section 16 ‘The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts are also empowered to: (WARS only) Warn; Admonish; Reprimand; and Suspend an attorney who appears before them from the practice of law for any of the causes mentioned in Rule 138, Section 27. FORMS OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES 1 WARNING - An act or fact of putting one on his guard against an impending danger, evil consequences or penalties. ADMONITION - A gentle or friendly reproof, mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight; an expression of authoritative advice, REPRIMAND - A public or formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he belongs. CENSURE - Official reprimand SUSPENSION - A temporary withholding of a lawyer's right to practice his profession as a lawyer for a certain period or for an indefinite period of time DISBARMENT - It is the act of the Philippine Supreme Court in withdrawing from an attorney the right to practice law. The name of the lawyer is stricken out from the roll of attorneys. RULES OF COURT, RULE 138, SEC. 27: GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT. 1 2 Deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in his office Grossly immoral conduct % pengco v. Bernardo, A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012. B3. His conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude Any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to the practice 5, Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court 6. For corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so 7. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers RULE 139-B: PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES a. National Grievance Investigator - Investigates all complaints against members of the IBP referred to them by the Board of Governors. b. Service or dismissal - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is, no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent. 4. Investigation - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte, The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application. e. Report of Investigator — Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors. f, Review and decision by the Board of Governors - Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary 4sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT a. Supreme Court Investigation — In proceedings initiated 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. The complaint may also be referred tothe IBP for investigation, report and recommendation b. 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. COMMON PROVISIONS a. The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case, Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant b, Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases, POSITION OF PENALTIES + Suspension By Division if one year or less En Banc if more than one year + Fine By Division if Php10,000.00 or less En Banc if more than Php10,000.00 + Incase of two or more suspensions, service will be successive, not simultaneous 45UDICIAL CI JUDICIAL CLEMENCY WHAT IS JUDICIAL CLEMENCY? Clemency, is an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is well merited, Proof of reformation and showing of potential and promise are indispensable,’ Judicial clemency is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any time, as the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that itis merited. Verily, clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts.3® BASIS FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY Article VIII, Section 5, (5) of the 1987 Constitution provides: "Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court." Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council provides: SEC. 5. Disqualification. - The following are disqualified from being nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman: 1. Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases; 2. Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and 3. Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has been granted judicial clemency. TO WHOM IS IT APPLICABLE? Judicial Clemency is given to members of the bar, who seeks to be given compassion by the Court to resume his or her previous status prior to suspension, or even disbarment. Here, there must be a showing of clear remorse of the petitioner of his previous actions. 2 Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz, 533 SCRA $34, September 19, 2007 Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs Villalon-Pornilos, A.M. No RTJ-09-2183, February 14, 2017 16WHAT ARE T} UIDELINI IN RESOLVING REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY? In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz. 533 SCRA 534, the Court lays down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency: 1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar ‘misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation. 2, Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation. 3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself, 4, There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service. 5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency. JURISPRUDENCE JUDICIAL CLEMENCY INVOLVING JUDGES IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF FORMER JUDGE BAGUINDA ALI ‘A. PACALNA, MTTC MARAWI CITY, A.M. NO. MTJ-03-1505, NOVEMBER 27, 2013 Respondent's petition is not supported by any single proof of his professed repentance. His appeal for clemency is solely anchored on his avowed intention to go back to the judiciary on his personal belief that "he can be x x x an effective instrument in the delivery of justice in the Province of Lanao del Sur because of his seventeen (17) years of experience," and on his "promise before the Almighty God and the High Court that he will never repeat the acts or omissions that he had committed as a Judge." He claims having learned "enough lessons" during the three years he became jobless and his family had “suffered so much because of his shortcoming.” In the present case, the Court held that respondent exhibited gross ignorance of procedure in the conduct of election cases in connection with petitions for inclusion of voters in the barangay elections, resulting in delays such that complainant's name was not timely included in the master list and consequently he was not considered a candidate for barangay chairman, Such failure to observe fundamental rules relative to the petitions for inclusion cannot be excused. Further, respondent was found to have intentionally fabricated an order which supposedly granted a motion for intervention by the counsel for the incumbent mayor whose re-election complainant and his co- petitioners were allegedly not willing to support. v7Respondent's act of fabricating an order to cover up his official shortcomings constitutes dishonesty, a reprehensible act that will not be sanctioned by this Court. Given the gravity of respondent's transgressions, it becomes more imperative to require factual support for respondent's allegations of remorse and reform, As this Court previously declared: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by respondent Baguinda- Ali A. Pacalna is DENIED for lack of merit. JUDICIAL CLEMENCY INVOLVING LAWYERS MACCARUBO VS, MACCARUBO, RE: PETITION (FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY) OF EDMUNDO MACARUBBO, ADM. CASE NO, 6148, JANUARY 22, 2013 Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledge his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. He asked forgiveness form his children and maintained a cordial relationship with them as shown in attached pictures, Devoted his time to his ailing mother. Appointed as Private Secretary to Mayor Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer. Took active part in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. Respondent Edmundo L, Macarubbo is hereby ordered REINSTATED in the Roll of Attorneys. REINSTATEMENT It is the Supreme Court that has the exclusive authority to reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer to the office of attorney-at-law. The SC may reinstate a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer for reasons and upon assurances satisfactory to the court. The court’s authority to reinstate, like the power to admit a person to the bar or remove one therefrom, stems from its constitutional prerogative to issue rules and regulations concerning the admission to the practice of law. MATTERS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR REINSTATEMENT ‘The Supreme Court, in deciding cases regarding reinstatement to the practice of law, has laid down the different matters taken into account for a disbarred or suspended lawyer to be reinstated: The applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been successful, 18and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust.*? ‘* The decisive questions on an application for reinstatement are whether applicant is ‘of good moral character" in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys-at-law and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privileges of the office of an attorney, and whether his mental qualifications are such as to enable him to discharge efficiently his duty to the public, and the moral attributes are to be regarded as a separate and distinct from his mental qualifications.” ‘+ His efficient government service. ‘© Applicant's appreciation of the significance of his dereliction and his assurance that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law + The favorable endorsement of the IBP as well as local government officials and citizens of is community and the pleas of his loved ones. ‘Evidence of reformation is required before applicant is entitled to reinstatement and the requirements for reinstatement have been held to be the same as for original admission to the bar, except that the court may require a greater degree of proof than in an original admission. ‘+ The court, in reinstating a lawyer, may impose certain conditions on his re- admission, It may, for example, require that the lawyer recognize and support his child with the complaining woman who was responsible for his disbarment on ground of gross immorality.4? - An absolute pardon granted by the President to a lawyer who had been convicted of a crime is a bar to a proceeding for disbarment based on such conviction, - An absolute pardon extended to a lawyer after his disbarment will not automatically entitle him to reinstatement. The disbarred lawyer should still show, by evidence aside from the absolute pardon, that he is now a person of good moral character and that he is now fit and proper to practice law. - “Apardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." "If granted after conviction, it removes In Re: Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu City, A.C. No. 270, March 28, 1974, © Cui vs. Cui, G.R, No, L-1872, August 31, 1964, “In ee Adriatico, 17 Phil. 324, November 17, 1910. © Yap Tan vs Sabandal, 170 SCRA 207, February 10, 1989. © In Re Pun, 43 SCRA S4, January 13, 1972. “ In Re Rovero, 101 SCRA 799, December 29, 1980. 19the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.*5 EFFECT OF REINSTATEMENT A lawyer who has been disbarred or independently suspended may be reinstated to the practice of law, however, such judgement does not become final notwithstanding the lapse of several years from its promulgation. It may be reopened or reconsidered by the Supreme Court upon proper petition and satisfactory evidence. The reinstatement of a disbarred or indefinitely suspended lawyer to the practice of law is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law. He will be subject to the same law, rules, and regulations as those applicable to any other lawyer. ‘The lawyer must comply with the conditions, if any, imposed on his reinstatement. In Re Lontok as cited in Inre Parcasio, AC. No. 1000, February 18, 1976. 20