a survey of disbarment and reinstatement cases (2)

8/2/2019 A Survey of Disbarment and Reinstatement Cases (2)

1/78

A SURVEY OF

DISBARMENT ANDREINSTATEMENT CASESIN PHILIPPINEJURISPRUDENCE

Kremil S. David and Michelle Borromeo


2/78

Why do we call it Bar anyway?


3/78


According to the website Florida Bar, thehistory of the term "bar" as representing alegal organization dates from the early

1300s. The word originated when KingEdward II established a system of courtsthroughout his kingdom to settle disputesamong the people. Judges moved from

village to village to hear and settledisagreements in the surroundingcommunities.


4/78


The people of this early era derived mostof their entertainment and education inpublic gathering places. Hearing the

plights and disputes of fellow villagers wasa great diversion for them. As the courtsgrew in number, more people beganattending these sessions as a social

gathering. Consequently, the courtsessions had to be held in fields orcommons to accommodate the crowds.


5/78


It soon became necessary to set upboundaries to separate the spectators fromthe proceedings. This was accomplished by

surrounding the court with a square of logs.Only those persons who were part of thecourt or party to the argument were allowedwithin the square of logs or "bars." Thus, the

terminology, "admission to the bar," becamesynonymous with practicing law. The term"bar" since has come to mean an organizedgroup practicing law in a given locality.


6/78

Admission to the Bar

In the Philippines, admission to the legalprofession is a function solely vested in theSupreme Court. Paragraph 5, Section 5 of

Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution providesthat the Supreme Court shall have the powerto

promulgate rules concerning the protection

and enforcement of constitutional rights,pleading, practice, and procedure in allcourts, the admission to the practice oflaw, the integrated bar...


7/78

Admission to the Bar

Every applicant for admission as amember of the bar

must be a citizen of the Philippines,

at least twenty-one years of age,

of good moral character,

and resident of the Philippines;

and must produce before the Supreme Court

satisfactory evidence of good moral character,and that no charges against him, involvingmoral turpitude, have been filed or arepending in any court in the Philippines


8/78

Disbarment its nature

Disbarment is the act of the court to inwithdrawing from an attorney theprivilege to practice law. The name of the

lawyer is stricken out from the Roll ofAttorneys. And he does not have the rightto put in his name even the prefix Atty..Neither can he sign pleadings even if he

does not personally appear in court.Disbarment terminates the individualsstatus as a lawyer. Ernesto L. Pineda, Legal Ethics,Central Bookstore: 2009, page 391.


9/78

Disbarment distinguished from contemptThe power to punish for contempt and the power to disbar are

separate and distinct, and that the exercise of one does not excludethe exercise of the other. A contempt proceeding for misbehaviour incourt is designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the otherhand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to deal with thefitness of the court's officer to continue in that office, to preserve and

protect the court and the public from the official ministrations ofpersons unfit or unworthy to hold such office. The principal purposeof the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard thefunctions of the court and should thus be used sparingly on apreservative and not, on the vindictive principle.The principal

purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority by the SupremeCourt is to assure respect for orders of such court by attorneys who,as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration ofjustice.


10/78

Disbarment sui generis

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers aresui generis. Neither purely civil nor purelycriminal, they do not involve a trial of an

action or a suit, but are rather investigationsby the Court into the conduct of one of itsofficers. Not being intended to inflictpunishment, [they are] in no sense a criminalprosecution. Accordingly, there is neither aplaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] maybe initiated by the Court motu proprio.


11/78

Disbarment Judicial in nature

Although, considered as a sui generis, thepower to discipline lawyers for that matter,the power to disbar is judicial in nature and

can be exercised only by the court. Theauthority of the Supreme Court to disciplinelawyers is anchored on the constitutionalprovision which mandates the highesttribunal to regulate the practice of law andthe admission of individuals to engage in thelegal profession.


12/78

Burden of Proof Rests upon Lawyer

The burden of proof still rests upon thelawyer to prove his innocence. When theintegrity of a member of the bar ischallenged, it is not enough that he deniesthe charges against him; he must meet theissue and overcome the evidence against

him.


13/78

Quantum of Evidence required

Administrative cases against lawyers aredistinct from and they may proceedindependently of civil and criminal cases. Theburdens of proof for these types of casesdiffer. In a criminal case, proof beyondreasonable doubt is necessary; in anadministrative case for disbarment orsuspension, "clearly preponderant

evidence" is all that is required. Thus, acriminal prosecution will not constitute aprejudicial question even if the same factsand circumstances are attendant in theadministrative proceedings.


14/78

Clearly Preponderant Evidence

Clearly preponderant evidence is thatdegree of evidence which is of greaterweight, or more convincing than thatwhich is offered in opposition to it; atbottom, it means the probability of truth.


15/78

Purpose of Disbarment

Disbarment has been designed

to compel the attorney to deal fairly and

honestly with his clients, and to remove from the profession a person

whose misconduct has proved him unfit tobe entrusted with the duties and

responsibilities belonging to the office of anattorney.


16/78

Procedure for disbarment

The only officers authorized to investigatecases of disbarment are the following

The Supreme Court;

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines through

its Commission on Bar Discipline orauthorized investigators; and

Office of the Solicitor General.


17/78

Procedure for Disbarment

The complaint shall state clearly andconcisely the facts complained of and shallbe supported by affidavits of personshaving personal knowledge of the factstherein alleged and/or by such documentsas may substantiate said facts.


18/78


The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or uponreferral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board ofOfficers, or at the instance of any person, initiate andprosecute proper charges against erring attorneysincluding those in the government service.

In proceedings initiated motu propio by the SupremeCourt or in other proceedings when the interest of

justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer thecase for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to anyofficer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court,

in which case the investigation shall proceed in thesame manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, savethat the review of the report of investigation shall beconducted directly by the Supreme Court.


19/78

Procedure for Disbarmment

Based upon the evidence adduced at theinvestigation, the Solicitor General orother Investigator designated by theSupreme Court shall submit to theSupreme Court a report containing hisfindings of fact and recommendations for

the final action of the Supreme Court.


20/78


Six copies of the verified complaint shallbe filed with the Secretary of the IBP orthe Secretary of any of its chapter whoshall forthwith transmit the same to theIBP Board of Governors for assignment toan investigator.


21/78

Procedure for disbarment

If the complaint is filed in the IBP, the Boardof Governors shall appoint from among IBPmembers an Investigator or, when special

circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3)investigators to investigate the complaint. AllInvestigators shall take an oath of office inthe form prescribed by the Board ofGovernors. A copy of the Investigator'sappointment and oath shall be transmitted tothe Supreme Court.


22/78


If the complaint appears to be meritorious, theInvestigator shall direct that a copy thereof be servedupon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same

within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If thecomplaint does not merit action, or if the answer showsto the satisfaction of the Investigator that thecomplaint is not meritorious, the same may bedismissed by the Board of Governors upon hisrecommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissalshall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme

Court which may review the case motu propio or upontimely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 daysfrom notice of the dismissal of the complainant


23/78


No investigation shall be interrupted orterminated by reason of the desistance,settlement, compromise, restitution,

withdrawal of the charges, or failure of thecomplainant to prosecute the same, unlessthe Supreme Court motu propio or uponrecommendation of the IBP Board of

Governors, determines that there is nocompelling reason to continue with thedisbarment or suspension proceedingsagainst the respondent.


24/78


The answer shall be verified. The originaland five (5) legible copies of the answershall be filed with the Investigator, with

proof of service of a copy thereof on thecomplainant or his counsel. The IBPBoard of Governors shall appoint asuitable member of the Integrated Bar as

counsel to assist the complainant of therespondent during the investigation incase of need for such assistance.


25/78


Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of therespondent to answer, the Investigator shall,with deliberate speed, proceed with theinvestigation of the case. He shall have thepower to issue subpoenas and administeroaths. The respondent shall be given fullopportunity to defend himself, to presentwitnesses on his behalf, and be heard by

himself and counsel. However, if uponreasonable notice, the respondent fails toappear, the investigation shall proceed exparte.


26/78


The Investigator shall terminate theinvestigation within three (3) monthsfrom the date of its commencement,unless extended for good cause by theBoard of Governors upon priorapplication.


27/78


The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator beforethe IBP Board of Governors which shall require the allegedcontemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. TheIBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if

necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rulefor hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far aspracticable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from itscommencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shallwithin a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting

forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith betransmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and ifwarranted, the imposition of penalty.


28/78


Not later than thirty (30) days from thetermination of the investigation, theInvestigator shall submit a report containinghis findings of fact and recommendations tothe IBP Board of Governors, together withthe stenographic notes and the transcriptthereof, and all the evidence presentedduring the investigation. The submission of

the report need not await the transcription ofthe stenographic notes, it being sufficientthat the report reproduce substantially fromthe Investigator's personal notes any relevantand pertinent testimonies.


29/78


Every case heard by an investigator shall bereviewed by the IBP Board of Governorsupon the record and evidence transmitted to

it by the Investigator with his report. Thedecision of the Board upon such review shallbe in writing and shall clearly and distinctlystate the facts and the reasons on which it is

based. It shall be promulgated within aperiod not exceeding thirty (30) days fromthe next meeting of the Board following thesubmittal of the Investigator's Report.


30/78


If the Board, by the vote of a majority ofits total membership, determines that therespondent should be suspended from thepractice of law or disbarred, it shall issue aresolution setting forth its findings andrecommendations which, together with

the whole record of the case, shallforthwith be transmitted to the SupremeCourt for final action.


31/78

Grounds for Disbarment

Section 27 of Rule 128 provides for the specific grounds fordisbarment of a lawyer. Accordingly, a member of the barmay be removed or suspended from his office as attorney bythe Supreme Court for

1. any deceit;

2. malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office;

3. grossly immoral conduct;

4. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moralturpitude;

5. for any violation of the oath which he is required to takebefore the admission to practice;

6. for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superiorcourt; or

7. for corruptly or wilful appearing as an attorney for a party toa case without authority so to do.


32/78

Grounds for Disbarment

These grounds are not exclusive. A lawyer may be disbarred even ifthe grounds are not any of those provided in Section 27. Thus theacquisition of an interest in the subject matter of the litigation,either through purchase or assignment, constitutes not only breachof professional ethics, but is a patent violation of Article 1491 of theCivil Code. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, evenat a public or judicial auction, either in person or through themediation of another:

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior andinferior courts, and other officers and employees connected withthe administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or

levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdictionor territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibitionincludes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply tolawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be theobject of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue oftheir profession.


33/78

In re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero,

A.C. No. 126, October 24, 1952 Tranquilino Rovero was convicted of smuggling. The

Solicitor General filed the complaint for disbarment,based on such conviction. The respondent admits the

existence of the decision of the Collector of Customs,and his conviction by the Court of Appeals, but sets upthe defense that they are not sufficient to disqualifyhim from the practice of law, especially because theacts of which he was found guilty, while at most merelydiscreditable, had been committed by him as an

individual and not in pursuance or in the exercise of hislegal profession. Still, the Court disbarred him, statingthat Respondent's conviction of smuggling by finaldecision of the Court of Appeals certainly involves anact done contrary at least to honesty or good morals.


34/78

Office of The Court Administrator, vs. Judge Florentino V.Floro, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006

Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place ina judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in itsabsence, equitable rules and principles in resolvingcontroversies. Thus, Judge Floros reference to psychicphenomena in the decision he rendered in the case of People v.

Francisco, Jr. sticks out like a sore thumb. In said decision,Judge Floro discredited the testimony of the prosecutionsprincipal witness by concluding that the testimony was a"fairytale" or a "fantastic story." He then went to state that"psychic phenomena" was destined to cooperate with the

stenographer who transcribed the testimony of the witness.


35/78

In Re Del Rosario, December 7, 1928, 52 Phil399 (1928)

The acquittal of Felipe del Rosario upon the criminal charge is not a bar tothese proceedings. The court is now acting in an entirely different capacity fromthat which courts assume in trying criminal cases. It is asking a great deal of themembers of the court to have them believe that Felipe del Rosario was totallyunaware of the illegal machinations culminating in the falsification of public

documents, of which he was the sole beneficiary. Indeed, the conviction of JuanVillaflor in itself demonstrates that Felipe del Rosario has no legal right to hisattorney's certificate. While to admit Felipe del Rosario again to the barexamination would be tantamount to a declaration of professional purity whichwe are totally unable to pronounce. The practice of the law is not an absoluteright to be granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to be extendedor withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion. The standards of the legal

profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape thepenalties of the criminal law. It would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to receiveone whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court, to clothe him withall the prestige of its confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out as aduly authorized member of the bar.


36/78

B.M. No. 1222, In Re: 2003 BarExaminations, dated February 4, 2004 Another scandal in the bar examination

which led to the disbarment of Atty. Danilode Guzman has to do with the leakage in the2003 Bar examination. inB.M. No. 1222,

In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, datedFebruary 4, 2004, the Supreme Courtordered the nullification of the results in theMercantile Law after a leakage of the

questions in the said subject happened. Uponinvestigation by a committee appointed bythe Court, it was found that there was indeedleakage of test questions in Mercantile Law.


37/78

B.M. No. 1222, In Re: 2003 BarExaminations, dated February 4, 2004 Upon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the

bar questions prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty.Balgos immediately called together and questioned hisoffice staff. He interrogated all of them except Atty.Danilo De Guzman who was absent then. All of themprofessed to know nothing about the bar leakage.

Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo DeGuzman, also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambdafraternity, FEU chapter. De Guzman admitted to himthat he downloaded the test questions from Attorney

Balgos computer and faxed a copy to a fraternitybrother. Attorney Balgos was convinced that DeGuzman was the source of the leakage of his testquestions in mercantile law.


38/78

Deceit as Ground for Disbarment

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is deceitwhen the act is performed with deliberate intent. Thisconcept of deceit under Criminal Law is applicable indisbarment proceedings. Deceit is the false representation ofa matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or

misleading allegations, or by concealment of that whichshould have been disclosed which deceives or is intended todeceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legalinjury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must becommitted prior to or simultaneously with the commissionof the fraud. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

Responsibility demands that a lawyer shall not engage inwilful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Bienvenido Ganzaludo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.No. 150910, February 6, 2006.


39/78

Deceit as Ground for Disbarment

The respondent avoided attending the hearingsconducted by the Provincial Fiscal ofPangasinan. Even in this Court, his whereaboutsare totally unknown. His knowledge that a

disbarment proceeding had been file pendingagainst him imposes upon him the duty to makehimself or his presence available to this Court fora trial. That he could not be located at his knownaddress without making his whereabouts known

implies that he had chosen to waive every rightand opportunity to put up his defense. Therespondent Isaias A. Celestino is barred from thepractice of the legal profession.


40/78

Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Achilles Bartolome, and St. LukesMedical Center,, vs. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June 17,1993.

A previously disbarred lawyer once againfaced another disbarment case and wascharged with dishonesty and gravemisconduct in connection with the theft of

some pages from a medical chart which wasmaterial evidence in a damage suit filed byhis clients against the doctors of St. Luke'sMedical Hospital. On November 12, 1987, he

was first disbarred for his immoral complicityor "unholy alliance" with a judge in QuezonCity to rip off banks and Chinese businessfirms which had the misfortune to be sued inthe latter's court.


41/78

Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Achilles Bartolome, and St. LukesMedical Center,, vs. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June 17,1993.

An incorrigible practitioner of "dirty tricks," like Grecia would beill-suited to discharge the role of "an instrument to advance theends of justice."

By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Greciahas demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has

demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of thehonorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership inthe Bar.

Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for anymisconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, whichshows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probityand good demeanour or unworthy to continue as an officer of the

court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges and tomanage the business of others in the capacity of an attorney, or forconduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or toinjure it in the favourable opinion of the public.


42/78

Malpractice as a ground for

Disbarment Malpractice refers to any dereliction of

duty or any act of malfeasance. The termis occasionally applied to lawyers, andthen means generally any evil practice in aprofessional capacity, but rather withreference to the court and its practice and

process than to the client.


43/78

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No. 5859November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).

De Vera was a member of the Bar and was the former counsel ofRosario P. Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the RegionalTrial Court of Davao City and an administrative case filed beforethe Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City ExtensionOffice.

Pursuant to a favourable decision, a writ of execution pendingappeal was issued in favour of Rosario P. Mercado. Respondent, asher legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, butdid not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded thatthe respondent turn over the proceeds of the garnishment, but thelatter refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the

judge while the balance was his, as attorneys fees. Such refusal

prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarmentagainst the respondent. On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board ofGovernors promulgated a Resolution holding the respondent guiltyof infidelity in the custody and handling of clients funds andrecommending to the Court his one-year suspension from thepractice of law.


44/78

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No. 5859November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).

Following the release of the aforesaid IBPResolution, the respondent filed a series oflawsuits against the Mercado family. Therespondent also instituted cases against the

family corporation, the corporationsaccountant and the judge who ruled againstthe reopening of the case where respondenttried to collect the balance of his alleged feefrom Rosario. Later on, the respondent alsofiled cases against the chairman andmembers of the IBP Board of Governors whovoted to recommend his suspension from thepractice of law for one year.


45/78

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No.5859 November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).

The Supreme Court ruled out that the respondentcommitted professional malpractice and gross misconductparticularly in his acts against his former clients after theissuance of the IBP Resolution suspending him from thepractice of law for one year. In summary, the respondent

filed against his former client, her family members, thefamily corporation of his former client, the Chairman andmembers of the Board of Governors of the IBP who issuedthe said Resolution, the Regional Trial Court Judge in thecase where his former client received a favourable judgment,and the present counsel of his former client, a total of twelvedifferent cases in various fora which included the Securitiesand Exchange Commission; the Provincial ProsecutorsOffice of Tagum, Davao; the Davao City Prosecutors Office;the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline; the Department of

Agrarian Reform; and the Supreme Court.


46/78

Grossly immoral conduct as a

ground for disbarment Grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment isnot easy to define. There is no hard and fast rule todetermine whether an act is grossly immoral to warrantthe disbarment for erring lawyers. The Court definedimmoral conduct as conduct that is wilful, flagrant orshameless, and that shows a moral indifference to theopinion of the good and respectable members of thecommunity.To justify suspension or disbarment, theact complained of must not only be immoral, butgrossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so

corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or anact so unprincipled or disgraceful as to bereprehensible to a high degree.


47/78

Atty. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Atty. Leo PalmaAdm. CaseNo. 2474, September 15, 2004.

The Supreme Court has somehow come upwith a common definition of what constitutesimmoral conduct, i.e., "that conduct which iswilful, flagrant, or shameless, and which

shows a moral indifference to the opinion ofthe good and respectable members of thecommunity." The Court ruled Atty. Palmasacts to be grossly immoral when heabandoned his lawful wife and threechildren; lured an innocent young womaninto marrying him; and misrepresentedhimself as a "bachelor" so he could contractmarriage in a foreign land.


48/78


49/78

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala,A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007.

The case of Atty. Noli Eala, commentator of thePhilippine Basketball Association, discussesgross immorality as basis for disbarment.

Eala, admittedly maintained relationship withMary Anne Moje, who was married to thecomplainant. Out of that illicit relationship, Mojegave birth to a child which Eala acknowledged.In the disbarment case filed against Eala, he

insisted that disbarment does not lie because hisrelationship with Irene was not, under Section 27of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, grosslyimmoral under scandalous circumstances.


50/78

Ui vs. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319,

June 8, 2000. Atty. Iris Bonifacio who entered into a

relationship with Carlos Ui, a marriedman and bore two children with him was

not disbarred. Her defense that shehonestly believed that the man was singlewas sided by the Court. This is so, because

upon discovery of the true civil status ofthe man, she parted ways with him.


51/78

Ui vs. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319,

June 8, 2000. We have held that "a member of the Bar andofficer of the court is not only required torefrain from adulterous relationships . . . butmust also so behave himself as to avoid

scandalizing the public by creating the beliefthat he is flouting those moral standards."Respondent's act of immediatelydistancing herself from Carlos Ui upondiscovering his true civil status belies

just that alleged moral indifferenceand proves that she had no intention offlaunting the law and the high moralstandard of the legal profession.


52/78

In Re Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C.No. 5118,September 9, 1999

The act of the lawyer in facilitating the travel of aperson to the United States using spurious traveldocuments was considered a grossly immoral conduct.The respondent is guilty of gross misconduct byengaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct contrary to Canon I, Rule 101 of the Code ofProfessional Responsibility. Respondent deceived thecomplainant by assuring her that he could give her visaand travel documents; that despite spurious documentsnothing untoward would happen; that he guaranteesher arrival in the USA and even promised to refund herthe fees and expenses already paid, in case something

went wrong.


53/78

In Re Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C.No. 5118,September 9, 1999

It is dismaying to note how respondent socavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty ofcomplainant when he made her travel withspurious documents. How often have victims of

unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruitersbeen imprisoned in foreign lands because theywere provided fake travel documents?Respondent totally disregarded the personalsafety of the complainant when he sent her

abroad on false assurances. Not only arerespondent's acts illegal, they are also detestablefrom the moral point of view. His utter lack ofmoral qualms and scruples is a real threat to theBar and the administration of justice.


54/78

Victoriano Resureccion vs. Atty. Ciriaco Sayson,A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998.

Complainant Victoriano Resureccion, on May 13, 1970, wasinvolved in a vehicular accident in EDSA resulting in thedeath of a boy. By reason of the said incident, Resureccion

was accused of homicide thru reckless imprudence beforethe City Fiscal's Office at Quezon City. In the preliminary

investigation, the father of the victim Mr. Armando BastoSr., was represented by Atty. Ramon Umali. The case forhomicide thru reckless imprudence was amicably settled on

August 8, 1970 and lawyer, Atty. Ciriaco Sayson receivedfrom the Resureccion the amount of P2,500.00. Atty. Saysonassured Resureccion that the sum would be delivered to Mr.

Armando Basto, Sr. However, he had not delivered the saidamount of P2,500.00 and the case was not dismissed for

which reason Resureccion was compelled to pay anew theheirs of the victim the amount P2,500.00. Atty. Sayson wascharged of and was convicted with estafa.


55/78

Victoriano Resureccion vs. Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, A.C. No.1037, December 14, 1998.

Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesserpenalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplishthe end desired.However, in the present case, the Courtnotes that even if respondent's culpability for estafa has beenindubitably established, there is no indication that he has

served sentence, returned to complainant what was due himor showed any remorse for what he did. The 27-year delay inthe resolution of this case was, to a large extent, caused byhis failure to appear before the Office of the Solicitor Generaland to inform the IBP of his change of address, a failure thatalso indicated his lack of regard for the very serious charges

brought against him. Respondent Sayson, by his conduct,has shown that he is not worthy to remain a member of the

bar.


56/78

CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORALTURPITUDE AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

It should be noted that the requirement ofgood moral character has three ostensiblepurposes, namely:

to protect the public;

to protect the public image of lawyers; and

to protect prospective clients.

to protect errant lawyers from themselves.


57/78

Moral Turpitude

Anathema to good moral character ismoral turpitude. Traditionally defined,moral turpitude is an act which involves

baseness, vileness, or depravity in privateand social duties which man owes to hisfellow man, or to society in general,

contrary to accepted and customary ruleof right and duty between man and man.


58/78

Moral Turpitude

In an old case, the crime of abduction withconsent was treated to be a crimeinvolving moral turpitude. However, the

Court, during this time, showedcompassion to the young lawyer as he wassimply suspended from practice for one

year to take effect after serving hissentence.


59/78

International Rice Research Institute vs.NLRC.R. No. 97239, May 13, 1993.

The Supreme Court laid down a more specificguide in determining whether a criminal offenseinvolves moral turpitude. In this case, Micosa, anemployee of the IRRI was convicted of homicide.

Consequently, he was terminated fromemployment for violation of Institute PersonnelManual, in as much as the provision in theManual states that an employee maybedismissed on the ground of conviction of a crime

involving moral turpitude. The Supreme Courtheld that IRRI simply assumed that conviction ofthe crime of homicide is conviction of a crimeinvolving moral turpitude.


60/78

International Rice Research Institute vs.NLRC.R. No. 97239, May 13, 1993.

This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide donot involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involvemoral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moralturpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown byevery known and intentional violation of statute, but whether anyparticular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of

fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances.While . . . generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve moralturpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it, cannot always beascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist byclassifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, sincethere are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involvemoral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral

turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, thatmoral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, themeaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion orexclusion as the cases are reached.


61/78

VIOLATION OF OATH AS GROUNDFOR DISBARMENTBy way of enumeration, the following duties as embodied in the Oath

when so violated are grounds for disbarment or suspension

1. Duty to recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of thePhilippines;

2. Duty to support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the

legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein;3. Duty to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court;

4. Duty to refrain from wittingly or willingly promoting or suing anygroundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to thesame;

5. Duty to delay no man for money or malice,

6. Duty to conduct oneself as a lawyer according to the best of hisknowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courtsas to his clients.


62/78

VIOLATION OF OATH AS

GROUND FOR DISBARMENT It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it hisduty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional,

but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects intitles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employedto bring suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking out those

with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of

action in order to secure them as clients, or to employ agents or runners forlike purposes, or to pay or reward, directly or indirectly, those who bring orinfluence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remuneratepolicemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others

who may succeed under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, ininfluencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, toseek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the professiondevolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such practicesupon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof, to the endthat the offender may be disbarred.

Canon 28 of the Professional Ethics


63/78

WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL ORDER OFA SUPERIOR COURT AS A GROUND FORDISBARMENT

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towardsthe courts a respectful attitude, not for the sakeof the temporary incumbent of the judicial office,but for the maintenance of its supreme

importance. Judges, not being wholly free todefend themselves, are peculiarly entitled toreceive the support of the bar against unjustcriticism and clamor. Whenever there is properground for serious complaint of a judicial officer,

it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit hisgrievances to the proper authorities. In suchcases, but not otherwise, such charges should beencouraged and the person making them shouldbe protected.


64/78

In the Matter of Atty. Lope Adriano vs. Remigio Estebia, G.R.No. 26868, February 27, 1969.

Adriano has received no less than three resolutions of the Courtrequiring compliance of its orders. To be recalled is that onSeptember 25, 1967, this Court directed him, in ten days fromnotice, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be takenagainst him for his failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapseof the time therefor. Nothing was done by counsel for over a year.

To impress upon counsel the gravity of his repeated failure to obeythis Court's orders, on October 3,1968, a fine of P500 was clampedupon him. He was directed to pay that fine in ten days. He was inthat order also required to file his brief in fifteen days. He was

warned that more drastic disciplinary action would be taken uponhis failure to do either. Still he remained unmoved. Then, thisCourt issued the peremptory order of December 5, 1968

commanding him to show cause within ten days from noticethereof why he should not be suspended from the practice of lawfor gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office. The Courtmade it certain that this order would reach him. He personallyacknowledged receipt thereof. He has not paid the fine. He hasdone nothing.


65/78

CORRUPT OR WILFUL APPEARANCE AS AN ATTORNEYFOR A PARTY TO A CASE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DOSO

An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized torepresent any cause in which he appears, and no

written power of attorney is required to authorize himto appear in court for his client, but the presiding judgemay, on motion of either party and on reasonable

grounds being shown, require any attorney whoassumes the right to appear in a case to produce orprove the authority under which he appears, and todisclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name ofthe person who employed him, and may thereuponmake such order as justice requires. An attorneys

wilfully appear in court for a person without beingemployed, unless by leave of the court, may bepunished for contempt as an officer of the court whohas misbehaved in his official transactions.


66/78

Prohibition to Practice

Erwin Javellana, an incumbent member of the CityCouncil or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and alawyer by profession, has continuously engaged in thepractice of law without securing authority for thatpurpose from the Regional Director, Department of

Local Government, as required by DLG MemorandumCircular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG MemorandumCircular No. 74-58 of the same department; that onJuly 8, 1989. He also, as counsel for Antonio Javieroand Rolando Catapang, filed a case against CityEngineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia of Bago City for"Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages"and in several criminal and civil cases in the city,

without prior authority of the DILG Regional Director.An administrative complaint was filed against him.


67/78

Section 90 of the Local Government Code doesnot discriminate against lawyers and doctors. Itapplies to all provincial and municipal officials inthe professions or engaged in any occupation.

Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunianmembers "may practice their professions, engagein any occupation, or teach in schools expectduring session hours." If there are some

prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers, itis because of all the professions, the practice oflaw is more likely than others to relate to, oraffect, the area of public service.


68/78

REINSTATEMENT

The Supreme Court has the exclusiveauthority to reinstate a disbarred lawyer. Thesole object of the Court upon an applicationfor reinstatement to practice, by one

previously disbarred, is to determine whetheror not the applicant has satisfied andconvinced the Court by positive evidence thatthe effort he has made toward therehabilitation of his character has beensuccessful, and, therefore, he is entitled to bere-admitted to a profession which isintrinsically an office of trust.


69/78

Jesus Ma. Cui vs. Antonio Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31,1964 citing therein 7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client, Sec. 41, p. 816.

The decisive questions on an application forreinstatement are whether applicant is "of goodmoral character" in the sense in which thatphrase is used when applied to attorneys-at-law

and is a fit and proper person to be entrustedwith the privileges of the office of an attorney,and whether his mental qualifications are suchas to enable him to discharge efficiently his duty

to the public, and the moral attributes are to beregarded as a separate and distinct from hismental qualifications.


70/78

REINSTATEMENT

The disbarred lawyer in the 2003 Barexamination scandal Petition for JudicialClemency and Compassion dated

November 10, 2008. He prays that thisHonorable Court "in the exercise of equityand compassion, grant petitioners plea

for judicial clemency, and thereupon,order his reinstatement as a member ingood standing of the Philippine Bar.


71/78

Petition for Judicial Clemency andCompassion dated November 10, 2008 Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse

expected of him considering the gravity of histransgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner hasredirected focus since his disbarment towards publicservice, particularly with the Peoples Law Enforcement

Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in thecommunity and other esteemed members of the legalprofession, such as retired Court of Appeals AssociateJustice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, ProfessorEdwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and theecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtastestify to his positive impact on society at large sincethe unfortunate events of 2003.


72/78

Reinstatement

In cases where the Court has deigned tolift or commute the supreme penalty ofdisbarment imposed on the lawyer, the

remorse of the disbarred lawyer and theconduct of his public life during his yearsoutside of the bar have been taken into

account. There is no concrete guideline asto how long must it take for a disbarredlawyer to be reinstated.


73/78

In the Matter of Reinstatement ofTranquilino Rovero It took twenty-eight year for Atty. Tranquilino Rovero to be

reinstated. He was found guilty for violation ofAdministrative Code for smuggling. The Court pointed outthe twilight years of the petitioner being at age 71 years old.

Since his disbarment in 1952, Rovero has honourably dealt

with his citizens. He had demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and

reformation as to be fit, once more, to engage in the practiceof law.

He was appointed the secretary of the Provincial Board ofAklan where that province was organized. He had also beenthe duly accredited delegate of the Aklan Chapter of thePhilippine National Red Cross to its Aklan Chapter of thePhilippine National Red Cross to its Second BiennialNational Convention held in Manila on August 23 to 26,1957.


74/78

In the Matter of Reinstatement ofTranquilino Rovero

He was president of the Quezon City Central Lions Club which he helpedorganize,and for a time, he was president of the Board of Trustees of theNorthwestern Visayan Colleges in Kalibo, Aklan.

He has also held high positions of trust in commercial establishments. Hehad been elected the president of the Filipino Industrial Corporation; the

vice-president of the Meteor Company, Inc., and the president of the Rural

Bank of Hermosa (Bataan), a position which he holds up to the present. Testimonials have been presented regarding the high esteem accorded him

in the community to which he belongs.

His good conduct is certified to by the president of the Aklan BarAssociation and the parish priest of Christ the King Church who stated thatMr. Rovero "is a devoted parishioner who always gets voluntarily involvedin the various charitable activities of the parish," and "is cooperative and

responsible and gets along fine with his fellow parishioners. " His conduct has also merited the approval of the late Pres. Ramon

Magsaysay who granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon for hiscrime.

I R P i i F R i I Th R ll Of A J T


75/78

In Re: Petition For Reinstatement In The Roll Of Attorneys, Juan T.Publico, petitioner, February 20, 1981.

Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to agreat extent in the sound discretion of the court, The courtaction will depend, generally speaking, on whether or not itdecides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial

administration of justice will be conserved by the applicant'sparticipation therein in the capacity of an attorney andcounselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate foradmission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person ofgood moral character a fit and proper person to practicelaw. The court will take into consideration the applicant's

character and standing prior to the disbarment, the natureand character of the charge for which he was disbarred, hisconduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that haselapsed between the disbarment and the application forreinstatement.


76/78

Tan vs. SabandalB.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992.

The Court denied the petition forreinstatement after it has received numerouspetitions preventing the reinstatement.Although there are testimonials attesting to

his good moral character; these wereconfined to lack of knowledge of thependency of any criminal case against himand were obviously made without awarenessof the facts and circumstances surrounding

the case instituted by the Government againsthim. Those testimonials can not, therefore,outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonestyand lack of good moral character.

Q i P I R Di b t f A d P Fl Q i


77/78

Quingwa vs. Puno In Re: Disbarment of Armando Puno. Flora Quingwa, vs.Armando Puno, G.R. No. 389 January 31, 1972.

As prayed for, respondent Armando Puno isordered reinstated in the practice of the law as amember of the Philippine Bar, subject to theconditions that (1) he shall formally acknowledge

his child, Armando Puno, Jr., now in the care ofthe mother, complainant Flora Quingwa, and (2)the said petitioner will provide a minimumamount of P125.00 per month for the support ofsaid child starting from 31 January 1971. Let the

name of said respondent be restored to the roll ofattorneys upon his taking anew thecorresponding oath of office before this Court,and upon his submittal of the formalacknowledgment of his child.


78/78

Thank you very much!

Kremil S. Davidand

Michelle Borromeo

a survey of disbarment and reinstatement cases (2)

Documents