Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Disbarment
Disbarment
of Lawyers
Practice of Law
is NOT a NATURAL or
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,
but is in the nature of a
PRIVILEGE
or
a
FRANCHISE
DISBARMENT
the
ultimate
disciplining
of
a
lawyer/attorney, which is taking away
his/her license to practice law
permanent removal from the practice
law
(Law.com)
DISBARMENT
is the extreme measure of
discipline & should be resorted
to only in cases where the lawyer
demonstrate an attitude or
course
of
conduct
wholly
inconsistent
with
approved
professional standards.
DISBAR
to deprive a person of the
right to practice as an
attorney at law
Constitutional Basis
Purpose of Disbarment
1.Protection of the Courts and the public
from misconduct of the Officers of the
Court
2.Insure and safeguard the proper
administration of justice
3.Public Welfare
Purpose of Disbarment
The purpose of disbarment is not meant as a
punishment to deprive an attorney of a means
of livelihood but rather to protect the Courts
and the public from the misconduct of the
Officers of the Court and to insure the proper
administration of justice (Geeslin v. Navarro 185 SCRA 230)
To deter others from similar misconduct and as
an indication to the public that the Courts will
maintain the ethical standards of the legal
for
Deceit
Malpractice
Gross misconduct
Grossly immoral conduct
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
Violation of the lawyers oath
Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
Corruption
Willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so
Soliciting cases for gain
Personally
Through an agent/broker
COMPLAINT
DISBARMENT
Nature sui generis means of its own kind.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis:
It is not civil nor criminal action.
It is not a trial of an action.
It does not involve private interest, but public
interest.
It is rather an investigation into the conduct or
fitness of a lawyer as an officer of the court.
Complainants are only witnesses. They need not be
aggrieved parties.
Cont.
It can proceed regardless of lack of interest of
complainants.
Prejudicial question is not involved.
Imprescriptible.
Res judicata does not apply.
Desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution,
withdrawal of the charge or failure of complainant
to prosecute or pursue the same does not interrupt
or terminate the proceeding.
Due process of law.
Cont.
It is private and confidential while pending.
Rule of in pari delicto is not applicable
Penalty cannot be in the alternative
Quantum of proof
Monetary claims cannot be granted except
restitution and return of money and
properties of the client given in the course
of the lawyer-client relationship
Disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against
a lawyer even if they involve the same set of facts.A finding of guilt in the criminal
case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
Conversely, the acquittal does not necessarily exculpate one administratively.
A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same
facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it
is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a
complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be
rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership
in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending
final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.
Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for
preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to
practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an
officer of the court. (SPS. SAUNDERS,v.PAGANO-CALDE, A.C. No. 8708 August 12, 2015)
Valdez vs. Dabon, Jr. A.C. No. 7353 , Nov. 16, 2015
When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that
the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to
foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the
profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.
Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the administration of
justice by requiring those who carry out this important function to be
competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may
repose confidence.
While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that
it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary
and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should
ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity
and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance
with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession
and to the public.
Cont.
Valdez vs. Dabon, Jr. A.C. No. 7353 , Nov. 16, 2015
Figueras and Victoria, Jr. v. Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, March 12,
2014
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. The procedural
requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only
the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply
in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of
public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the
proof or failure of proof of the charges. Further, the Supreme
Court held that a lawyer engaged to represent a client in a
case bears the responsibility of protecting the latters interest
with utmost diligence.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended as attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that disbarment is the appropriate
penalty for conviction by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.Moral
turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man
owes to his fellow men or to society in general,contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.
A violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of
the appropriate penalty against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment.
WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT
The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of a
disbarment case against a lawyer does not
terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and
of this Court to continue an administrative
proceeding against a lawyer-respondent as a
member of the Philippine Bar. The complainant in
a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case,
but a witness who brought the matter to the
attention of the Court. (Quiachon v. Ramos,A.C. No. 9317
June 4, 2014)
Re-admission
When exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should
see to it that only those who establish their present moral fitness and
knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar. The doors to the practice of
law are never permanently closed on a disbarred attorney, the Court owes a
duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure that if
the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice.
Basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement - whether the Iawyer has
sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in conduct and character. Whether
the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent
on the sound discretion of the Court. The lawyer has to demonstrate and prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is again worthy of
membership in the Bar. The Court will take into consideration his or her
character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of
the charge/s for which he or she was disbarred, his or her conduct
subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed in between the
disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law of Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until
he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his
ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canadas
free medical aid program. His application was approved and he became a
Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On
that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law
practice.
There is a question, however, whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in
May 2004.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and
he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) shall apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice." Stated otherwise,
before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his
law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:
the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
the payment of professional tax;
the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education;
this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine
laws and update him of legal developments and
the retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the
Philippine bar. Petition granted subject to compliance with the conditions stated above
and submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may
retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.
DISBARMENT of
JUSTICES/JUDGES
A Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the
constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of
the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be
thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either
criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or
misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.
The above rule rests on the fundamental principles of judicial independence
and separation of powers. The rule is important because judicial
independence is important. Without the protection of this rule, Members of
the Supreme Court would be brought against them by unsuccessful
litigants or their lawyers or by other parties who, for any number of reasons
might seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by the Court.
All those who don the judicial robe must always instill in their
minds the exhortation that the administration of justice is a
mission. Judges, from the lowest to the highest levels, are the gems
in the vast government bureaucracy, beacon lights looked upon as
the embodiments of all what is right, just and proper, the ultimate
weapons against injustice and oppression.
Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct
and integrity have no place in the judiciary.The various violations
of respondent reflect a totality of transgressions of one who no
longer deserves a seat in the bench.This Court will not withhold
penalty when called for to uphold the peoples faith in the judiciary.
EFFECT of
FOREIGN DISBARMENT