III.

LAWYERS CLAIMING INFLUENCE OR FAMILIARITY TO THE COURT: HOW THE SUPREME

COURT DISBAR AND DISCIPLINE THEM

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. Their clients'
success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted
to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical. 1

It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the
privilege and right to practice law during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct
ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has afforded him. 2 Without
invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a
proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise
the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.

The Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the power to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar and legal assistance to the underprivileged. 3 As part of
its power to regulate the practice of law, the Supreme Court can discipline, suspend or disbar any unfit and
unworthy member of the Bar, reinstate any disbarred or suspended lawyer, punish for contempt any person
for unauthorized practice of law and, in general, exercise overall supervision of the legal profession.

The Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court specifies the procedure on disbarment and discipline of attorneys.
All the investigations are made by the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline which in turn, recommends to
the Supreme Court en banc for the disposition of the case in a decision. 4 Thus, the report and
recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline shall comprehensively examine all the acts of
professional misconduct and how thereby failed to live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on
members of the bar for the proper penalty.

The acts of a lawyer mentioning his alleged connections with Supreme Court Justices, Trial Court
Judges, his prominence, and influence in the legal community constitute a violation of his duty as an
attorney and his oath as a lawyer to never mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.5

Such misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the Bar justifies disciplinary action. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all
times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral
standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty 6, including suspension
and disbarment.7

1. Jimenez, et al. v. Atty. Verano, Jr., 739 Phil. 49, 57 (2014).

2. Velasco v. Atty. Doroin, et al., 582 Phil. 1, 9 (2008).
3. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, Section 5 (5) - 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 underprivileged.
4. Rules of Court, Rule 139-B, Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the
verified complaint of any person.
5. A.C. No. 10498. September 04, 2018
6. Caballero v. Atty. Sampana, A.C. No. 10699, 06 October 2020.
7. Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27. Disbarment and 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.
 Cases where Disbarment was the Proper Penalty

Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must
always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of
misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member
of the bar.8

Disbarment should be imposed in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct borders on
the criminal, or committed under scandalous circumstance.9

As previously discussed, the CPRA provision is clear that a lawyer shall not make claims of power,
influence, or relationship with any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency. 10 Hereinto what
circumstance the court will wield its power to disbar a lawyer violating the said provision and be
considered unfit to engage in the practice of law.

In the case of Ko v. Atty. Mudarante , A.C. No 11118, 14 July 2020, by giving the impression that
justice is served depending on one's connections, and insinuating that the administration of justice is
susceptible to corruption and misconduct, Atty. Mercy has placed the judiciary in a bad light thereby
eroding the public's trust and confidence in the judicial system when she tarnished the reputation of the
judiciary by using her political connections not only to gain the trust of Nenita but also to discourage her
from filing any complaint against her and Atty. Ladimir, for misappropriating the funds of Nenita for the
purchase of Manila Prince Hotel, before the courts thereby impressing upon Nenita that this Court can be
swayed by political connections. 11

As an officer of the court, Atty. Mercy failed to uphold a high regard to the profession by staying true to
her oath and keeping her actions beyond reproach. She also did not observe her bounden duty as a lawyer
to keep the reputation of the courts untarnished. 12 As expounded in Francia v. Abdon,13 citing Berbano v.
Barcelona:14
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
advance the ends of justice.' [ x x x]. His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the
courts to which he owes fidelity, 'not to promote distrust in the administration of justice." [x x
x] Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice
"is disastrous to the continuity of the government and to the attainment of the liberties of the
people." [x x x]. Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his
sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and
regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice."

In the foregoing case, the respondent lawyers demonstrated that they do not possess not even a scintilla
of high moral fiber thereby making them unworthy of public confidence, and of being members of the legal
profession. Their violations clearly caused damage and prejudice to their client, and had put the
administration of justice in a bad light. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to impose on both respondent
lawyers the most severe penalty of disbarment and their names stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. 15

In addition, as enunciated in the case of Roque vs. Atty. Jose A. Diño, Jr, A.C. No. 7389, July 02,
2019,16 the respondent lawyer was disbarred from the practice of law effective immediately by representing
to his clients that he can secure the issuance of a TRO by bribing the judge ₱150,000.00.
8. Munar, et al. v. Atty. Bautista, et al.:73 805 Phil. 384, 398-399 (2017).
9. Ko v. Atty. Maduramente, A.C. No 11118, 14 July 2020.
10. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon II – Propriety, Section 15 -. Improper claim of influence or
familiarity. — A lawyer shall observe propriety in all dealings with officers and personnel of any court, tribunal, or other
government agency, whether personal or professional. Familiarity with such officers and personnel that will give rise to an
appearance of impropriety, influence, or favor shall be avoided. (13.01a) 23 A lawyer shall not make claims of power, influence,
or relationship with any officer of a court, tribunal, or other government agency.
11. Id.
12. Francia v. Atty. Abdon, 739 Phil. 299, 313 (2014).
13. Id.
14. Supra note 59, at 784.
15. Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332, 337 (2014).
16. Id.
The court explained that as an officer of the Court, he has a paramount duty to protect the court's integrity
and assist it in the administration of justice according to law. He should not espouse a belief that the
judicial system can be bought, much less contribute to the perpetuation of such belief. Unfortunately,
instead of relying on the merits of his clients' cause, he represented to his clients that the judicial system can
be bribed. This inexcusable, shameful and unlawful act of Atty. Diño, by itself, constitutes gross
misconduct. In fact, the court find that it is conduct so condemnable that it merits the harshest of penalties.

Furthermore, asking an amount of money for a favorable decision in a pending case, claiming
influence to the judicial officers and threatening clients that they would not like the succeeding events if
they· fail to pay the amount advanced for such illegal purposes is considered a gross misconduct, grossly
immoral conduct, a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.17
In a per curiam decision, the Court En Banc also ordered the name of respondent Atty. Carlo Marco
Bautista stricken off the Roll of Attorneys effective immediately.18

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the disbarment of a lawyer for multiple violations of the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including receiving more than P13 million from his client
purportedly to secure a “favorable resolution on a criminal case.” The Court said that respondent Bautista’s
blatant violation of the CPR and his sacrosanct duties as a lawyer warrant the imposition of the extreme
penalty of disbarment.

The Court reiterated that the lawyer’s act of influence-peddling for implying that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the
legal system and puts the administration of the justice in a bad light. 19

Notably, the enunciation of disbarment of lawyers claiming influence and familiarity to the courts
is not just solely based on the violation of such provision but anchored to criminal offenses and considered
further the gravity of related acts which tantamount to gross misconduct. 20 Generally, such conduct is
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose 21 established by clear, convincing and
satisfactory proof.22

Therefore, to rightfully impose the ultimate penalty of disbarment the totality of the violations as
well as the damage and prejudice that a certain lawyer has brought upon the good name and reputation of
the Supreme Court and the judiciary as an institution must be considered.23
Cases where Suspension from the practice of law was the Proper Penalty

In Plumptre v. Atty. Rivera, 24 the lawyer successfully solicited money from his client to allegedly
bribe a judge to rule in their favor. The Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for three (3)
years against the lawyer. It was emphasized that a lawyer's act of soliciting money to bribe a judge served
to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the impression that court cases are won by the party with
the deepest pockets and not on the merits.

In Rau Sheng Mao v. Atty. Velasco, 25 the lawyer therein, among others, sent a letter to the
complainant bragging about his influence over judges. The Court suspended him for two (2) years from the
practice of law. It was highlighted therein that a lawyer is duty bound to avoid improprieties which give the

17. Rodil v. Atty. Andrew C. Corro, A.C. No. 10461, 30 July 2019
18. SC Disbars Lawyer Who Claimed “Connections” with Prosecutor’s Office, Supreme Court Public Information
Office, http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ 24 February 2023
19. Id.
20. Flores v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015. 768 SCRA 161, 168, citing Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No.
7430, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 1, 9.
21.Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr. A.C. No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 199,204
22. Ceniza v. Atty. Rubia, 617 Phil. 202, 208-209 (2009).
23. Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017.
24. 792 Phil. 626 (2016).
25. 459 Phil. 440 (2003).
appearance of influencing the court.

In Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez,26 the lawyer gave an impression that he is able to influence the Office
of the Ombudsman to rule in favor of his client provided that complainant furnish the necessary bribe
money for the said office. The Court suspended him for one (1) year from the practice of law for influence
peddling. It was stated therein that lawyers who offer no skill other than their acquaintances or relationships
with regulators, investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law, and debase
themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble profession.

In Dongga-as v. Cruz-Angeles,27 the court suspended respondents-lawyers from the practice of law
for three years because they represented to their client that they could find a "friendly" court, judge, and
public prosecutor to ensure a favorable ruling in the client's annulment case. Their representation
undermined and/or denigrated the integrity of the national prosecution service and the courts, in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Just like in the disbarment cases, the Court rules that, considering the gravity and seriousness of
the offenses committed by respondent-lawyer, imposable penalty against respondent for influence peddling,
attempted bribery, and disrespecting court processes is suspension from the practice of law. 28
Conclusion

A lawyer is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to influence, or may be seen to
influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted. 29

Taking into consideration the a forecited rulings, A lawyer may be penalized, even disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of
the legal profession as embodied in the CPR. The practice of law is a profession, a form of public trust, the
performance of which is entrusted to those who are qualified and who possess good moral character. The
appropriate penalty for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the
surrounding facts.30

There is no specific rule as to what extent of violation under the provision of lawyers claiming
familiarity or influence in court, whether a lawyer should be disbarred or only suspended. The hard and
fast rule in relation to this, in general, is the consideration of gravity and seriousness of acts on the account
of violating such ethical standard.

Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an
attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only
the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same. 31

As an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid discipline that demands that in his every exertion
the only criterion be that truth and justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law profession its
nobility, its prestige its exalted place. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is
clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of
the quest of truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.32

26. 785 Phil. 303 (2016).

27. A.C. No. 11113, August 9. 2016, 799 SCRA 624.
28. Judge Ariel Florentino Dumlao, Jr., v. Atty. Manel N. CamachoA.C. No. 10498. 04 September 2018
29. Jimenez, et al. v. Atty. Verano, Jr., 739 Phil. 49, 57 (2014).
30. Sison, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, 777 Phil. 1, 14 (2016).
31. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Torres, 743 Phil. 614, 621 (2014
32. Apostacy in the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789-790)