8/10/2019 Pale Report (Handout)

1/2

GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARYPROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAWYERS

Group 13: Abigail Aman and Michelle Vasquez

INSTANCES OF MALPRACTICE AND GROSSMISCONDUCT

1. Failure of a lawyer to appeal in allowingthe period of appeal to lapse (Toquib vs.Tomol, Jr., Adm. Case No. 554, January 3,1969; Abiero vs. Juanino, 452 SCRA 1;Cheng vs. Agravante, 426 SCRA 42).

2. Failure of a lawyer to submit his client's brief within the reglementary period(Villaflores vs. Limos, 538 SCRA 140)

3. Preparation and notarization of immoralcontracts or agreements (In re: Atty.Bucana, 72 SCRA 14)3.a Notarizing a forged document(Alitagtag vs. Garcia, 376 SCRA 162)

4. Preparation by a notary public of a falseaffidavit (Vda. De Guerrero vs. Hernando,68 SCRA 76)

5. Solicitation of cases either directly orindirectly through paid agents or brokers(Tan vs. David, 126 SCRA 389; Rule 138,Sec. 27, Rules of Court)

6. Abandonment of a client's case (Mago vs.Bote, 156 SCRA 144)

7. Delay in the filing of a client's case (In re:Carmen, 41 Phil. 899).

8. Notary public, who makes it appear in the

jurat of a contract that an affiant exhibitedto him his residence certificate when in facthe did not do so (Vda. De Guerrero vs.Hernando, 68 SCRA 76); Notarizing adocument without the affiant's presence(Gonzales vs. Ramos, 460 SCRA 352)

9. Acknowledging a special power of attorneyin the absence of one of the parties (Laravs. Baretto, 127 SCRA 480)

10. Compromising a client's case withoutauthority ( Gonzales vs. Parrenas, 94 SCRA48);

11. Notarizing documents after the lawyer'scommission as notary public had expired(Soreta vs. Simpliciano, 443 SCRA 1);notarizing a deed of sale where the sellerscould not have signed because they long

passed away (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA248)

12. Representing conflicting interests(Quiambao vs. Bamba, 468 1).

13. Encroaching upon the business of anotherlawyer (Laput vs. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45)

14. Advertisement of a lawyer's skill in anewspaper or publication (Director ofReligious Affairs vs. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579)

15. Cooperating in illegal practice of law such

as the formation of a partnership withlayman ( Beltran Jr. vs. Abad 132 SCRA452)

16. Conversion of client's money to his(lawyer's) own benefit ( Sipin-Nabor vs.Baterina 260 SCRA 6)

17. Gross negligence (Arambulo vs. CA, 226SCRA 589)

18. Notarizing one's own affidavit.19. Intimidating a client by a display of a

revolver (Vda. De Barrera vs. Laput, 26SCRA 44).

20. Failure to pay a fine imposed for failure tofile a brief (In re: Dianala Jo, 1 SCRA 31).

21. Refusal to pay IBP dues (In re: Maquera,435 417)

22. Practicing law despite the lawyer'ssuspension even if he refrained from usingthe word attorney (De Leon vs. Torres,Adm. Case No. 180, June 30, 1956)

23. Lack of fidelity, care and devotion to thecause of the client (Vda. De Alisbo vs.Jalandoon, Sr., 199 SCRA 321)

24. Attempting to mislead the Supreme Court by raising issues long laid to rest by finaland executory judgment (Limpin, Jr. vs.IAC, 161 SCRA 83)

25. Unwarranted obstinacy in evading paymentof debt ( Yuson vs. Vitan, 296 SCRA 540)

26. Acquiring for himself the lots of his clientwhich were entrusted to him (Hernandez,Jr. vs. Go, 450 SCRA 1)

27. Offering false testimony (Ting-Dumali vs.Torres, 427 SCRA 108)28. Downloading by Atty. De Guzman of the

Bar Examination questions from Atty.Balgo's computer without the knowledge ofthe latter (Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, 421SCRA 703)

29. Issuance of bouncing checks (Agno vs.Atty. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14,2008).

30. Advising client to sign an ante-dated deedof sale to avaoid capital gains taxes (Chua

vs. Mesina, 436 SCRA 149).31. Disregarding orders of the IBP-CBD

(Santeco vs. Avance, 418 SCRA 6).

The following are circumstances orexamples of gross immorality and their resultingconsequences as punishment as imposed by thecourt: ( Garrido v. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February4, 2010)

a. Seducing the niece of a married womanWith whom the erring lawyer had adulterousrelationship with was disbarred by theSupreme Court in the case of Royong v.Oblena.

8/10/2019 Pale Report (Handout)

2/2

b. A lawyer continuing and engaging into anadulterous relationship with the wife of hisson after the lawyer had previouslycommitted illicit relationship with his sonswife even before the lawyers son wasmarried to his wife, was disbarred in thecase of Mortel v. Aspiras.

c. A lawyer maintained an adulterousrelationship with a woman who is alreadymarried was suspended indefinitely in thecase of Cordova v. Cordova, but in the caseof Guevarra v. Eala, the lawyer wasdisbarred.

d. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting withanother woman, disbarred as shown in thecase of Toledo v. Toledo.

e. Bigamy committed by the lawyer wasdisqualified from admission to the Bar in thecase Villasanta v. Peralta, while in the caseof Terre v. Terre, the penalty wasdisbarment, and finally, on the Mijares v.Villaluz case, the penalty given wassuspension.

f. In the case of Delos Reyes v. Aznar, alawyer took advantage of his high positionand high authority in the college of medicinewhere he was employed when he asked afemale student to go with him outside theirtown in which he had carnal knowledge ofher under the condition that if she wouldallow the sexual intercourse, she would passthe subject where she failed, the lawyer was

disbarred.g. A lawyer was disbarred in the case ofCabrera v. Agustin, when the lawyer trickedthe woman in order to have carnalknowledge with her, when he said that theyare already legally married.

h. A lawyer who promised marriage to awoman in order to have carnal knowledgewhich he did not fulfill was disbarred. In thecase of Quingwa v. Puno.

i. A lawyer having a concubine and failing tosupport his children was indefinitely

suspended by the Supreme Court in the caseof Laguitan v. Tinio.

j. Disbarment proceeding is warranted againsta lawyer who abandons his lawful wife andmaintains an illicit relationship with anotherwoman (Bustamante-Alejandro vs.Alejandro, 433 SCRA 527

Proceedings in the IBP

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

Proceedings initiated motu proprio by theSupreme Court may be referred by the SupremeCourt to the Solicitor General or to any officer of theSupreme Court or judge of a lower court forinvestigation. Investigation shall proceed in the samemanner as it would in the IBP.