ANATHEA A.

ACABAN
PROFESSION
JD-1C1
MONTEMAYOR

LEGAL
ATTY.

Cases on Disciplinary actions for lawyers

Purpose and Nature of Lawyer Discipline Proceedings

The purpose of lawyer discipline proceedings is to protect the public and the
administration of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, will not
discharge, or are unlikely to discharge properly their professional duties to
clients, the public, the legal system, and the legal profession.

Upon the filing and service of formal charges, lawyer discipline proceedings
should be public, and disposition of lawyer discipline should be public in
cases of disbarment, suspension, and reprimand. Only in cases of minor
misconduct, when there is little or no injury to a client, the public, the legal
system, or the profession, and when there is little likelihood of repetition by
the lawyer, should private discipline be imposed.

Sanctions to be imposed for disciplinary measures

Disbarment
Suspension
Interim Suspension
Reprimand
Admonition
Probation

Sanctions to be imposed for disciplinary measures

Other Sanctions and Remedies

(a) restitution,
(b) assessment of costs,
(c) limitation upon practice,
(d) appointment of a receiver,
(e) requirement that the lawyer take the bar examination or
professional responsibility examination,
(f) requirement that the lawyer attend continuing education
courses, and
(g) other requirements that the states highest court or
disciplinary board deems consistent with the purposes of lawyer
sanctions.

DISBARMENT
Disbarment
Disbarment terminates the individuals status as a lawyer. Where disbarment is not
permanent, procedures should be established for a lawyer who has been disbarred
to apply for readmission, provided that:
(1) no application should be considered for five years from the effective date of
disbarment; and
(2) the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence:
(a) successful completion of the bar examination;
(b) compliance with all applicable discipline or disability orders or rules; and
(c) rehabilitation and fitness to practice law.

SUSPENSION AND INTERIM SUSPENSION

Suspension
Suspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of law for a specified
minimum period of time. Generally, suspension should be for a period of time equal
to or greater than six months, but in no event should the time period prior to
application for reinstatement be more than three years. Procedures should be
established to allow a suspended lawyer to apply for reinstatement, but a lawyer
who has been suspended should not be permitted to return to practice until he has
completed a reinstatement process demonstrating rehabilitation, compliance with
all applicable discipline or disability orders and rules, and fitness to practice law.
Interim Suspension
Interim suspension is the temporary suspension of a lawyer from the practice of law
pending imposition of final discipline. Interim suspension includes:
(a) suspension upon conviction of a serious crime or,
(b) suspension when the lawyers continuing conduct is or is likely to cause
immediate and serious injury to a client or the public.
REPRIMAND, ADMONITION AND PROBATION
Reprimand
Reprimand, also known as censure or public censure, is a form of public discipline
which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyers
right to practice.
Admonition
Admonition, also known as private reprimand, is a form of non-public discipline
which declares the conduct of the lawyer improper, but does not limit the lawyers
right to practice.
Probation
Probation is a sanction that allows a lawyer to practice law under specified
conditions. Probation can be imposed alone or in conjunction with a reprimand or an
admonition; probation can also be imposed as a condition of readmission or
reinstatement.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Violations of Duties Owed to Clients

Failure to Preserve the Clients Property

Failure to Preserve the Clients Confidences
Failure to Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Lack of Diligence
Lack of Competence
Lack of Candor Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Violations of Duties Owed to the Public

Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity

Failure to Maintain the Public Trust

Violations of Duties Owed to the Legal System

Abuse of the Legal Process

Improper Communications With Individuals in the Legal

System

Violations of Duties Owed to the Profession

CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AGGRAVATE AND MITIGATE THE SANCTION

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Factors which may be considered in aggravation.

(a) prior disciplinary offenses;

(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
(c) a pattern of misconduct;
(d) multiple offenses;
(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally
failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive
practices during the disciplinary process;
(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(h) vulnerability of victim;
(i) substantial experience in the practice of law;
(j) indifference to making restitution.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Factors which may be considered in mitigation.
(a) absence of a prior disciplinary record;
(b) absence of a dishonest or selfish motive;
(c) personal or emotional problems;
(d) timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify
consequences of misconduct;
(e) full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
toward proceedings;
(f) inexperience in the practice of law;
(g) character or reputation;
(h) physical or mental disability or impairment;
(i) delay in disciplinary proceedings;
(j) interim rehabilitation;
(k) imposition of other penalties or sanctions;
(l) remorse;
(m) remoteness of prior offenses.
AGGRAVATING NOR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Factors Which Are Neither Aggravating Nor Mitigating.
(a) forced or compelled restitution;
(b) agreeing to the clients demand for certain improper behavior or result;
(c) withdrawal of complaint against the lawyer;
(d) resignation prior to completion of disciplinary proceedings;
(e) complainants recommendation as to sanction;
(f) failure of injured client to complain.

DISBARMENT CASES FOR LAWYERS

EMILIA O. DHALIWAL, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. ABELARDO B. DUMAGUING, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9390
August 1, 2012
FACTS:
Emilia O. Dhaliwal (complainant) she engaged the services of Atty. Aberlardo B.
Dumaguing (respondent) connection with the purchase of a parcel of land from FilEstate Development, Inc. (Fil-Estate). Atty. Dumaguing was then given P342,000.00
for him to consign with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). On
September 22, 2000, respondent, on behalf of complainant, filed with the HLURB a
complaint for delivery of title and damages against Fil-Estate. A week after, or on
September 29, 2000, Atty. Dumaguing withdrew from the HLURB the checks
previously consigned. On March 3, 2003, complainant informed the HLURB that
respondent is no longer representing her. On March 11, 2003, the HLURB
promulgated its Decision, finding the case for delivery of title and damages
premature as there was no evidence of full payment. Complainant then demanded
Atty. Dumaguing to return her the amount he earlier withdrew but responded did
not comply. Dhaliwal filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Dumaguing.
Responded admitted all the allegations in the complaint. In his defense, he claims
that the amount of P311,819.94 was consigned to the HLURB to cover the full
payment of the balance of the purchase price of the lot. Respondent allegedly filed
a motion for reconsideration but HLURB has not yet acted upon it. He attached a
copy of the said motion in his answer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Dumaguing should be disbarred.
RULING:
Yes. It was established that Atty. Dimaguing submitted a false and fabricated piece
of evidence because it did not contain proof that the same was filed with the HLURB
nor was there proof that the other party was notified. He violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which states that: Canon 16-A lawyer shall hold
in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession.
Rule 16.01-A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received
for or from the client. Rule 16.02-A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Rule 16.03-A
lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand.
A lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his
client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own
use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation
of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs public confidence in
the legal profession and deserves punishment. He is suspended from the practice of
law for six (6) months and ordered to return to complainant said amount of
P311,819.94 with legal interest.
JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant, vs.
ATTY. TYRONE PEDREA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9401
October 22, 2013
FACTS:

A complaint was filed against ATTY. TYRONE PEDREA by JOCELYN DE LEON due to
overt acts of sexual harassment against his female client . Jocelyn De Leon
requested the representation from the Public Attorneys Office through Atty. Tyrone
Pedrea for a civil case the support of her two children. On January 30, 2006, an
appointment was scheduled by de Leon, which was moved by Atty. Pedreadue to
prior hearing. On their way home, the lawyer offered a ride to the client and the
harassment took place while inside the car. De Leon provided a detailed and
consistent testimony on the event and filed before the IBP Investigating
Commissioner to recommend the disbarment of the said lawyer. As a response, Atty.
Pedrea filed a counter-affidavit with a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness and
his complaint-affidavit for theft, taking the phone of the lawyer while on board of
the car. The IBP then dismissed the criminal case and proceed independently with
the complaint of De Leon which according to them, violated the Rule 1.01 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and provide a recommendation of
suspension for six month from the practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pedrea was guilty of sexual harassment against his female
client?
Whether or not the lawyer is subject for suspension or disbarment in the practice of
law?
Ruling:
The court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
and support them with previous cases filed against the lawyers in the ground of
immorality. The court cited that good moral character is essential in the admission
to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal Profession, as part of their oath in
respect to Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In their view, the penalty for
suspension was lifted to two years from the practice of law for the grounds of sexual
harassment against his female clienteffective upon receipt of the decision, and with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs.
Judge Anatalio S. Necessario, Respondent.
A.M No. MTJ-07-1691
April 2, 2013
FACTS:
The judicial audit team created by the Office of the Court Administrator (or OCA)
reported alleged irregularities in the solemnization of marriages in several branches
of the MTCC and RTC in Cebu City. Also, certain package fees were offered to
interested parties by "fixers" or "facilitators" for instant marriages. A female and a
male lawyer of the audit team went undercover as a couple looking to get married.
The female lawyer went inside the branch to inquire about the marriage application
process. A woman named, Helen, approached and assisted the female lawyer. When
the female lawyer asked if the marriage process could be rushed, Helen assured the
lawyer that the marriage could be solemnized the next day, but the marriage
certificate would only be dated the day the marriage license becomes available.
Helen also guaranteed the regularity of the process for a fee of three thousand
pesos only. Judge Necessario, Judge Acosta, Judge Tormis and Judge Rosales were
asked by the OCA to submit their comments against the formal administrative
complaint by the judicial audit team. OCA also suspended the judges pending
resolution for the cases against them. OCA recommended the dismissal of the
respondent judges and some court employees , and the suspension or adominition
of others for being guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty for solemnizing
marriages with questionable documents; for failure to make sure that the
solemnization fee has been paid; for gross ignorance of law for solemnizing
marriages under Article 34 of the Family Code wherein one or both parties were

minors during cohabitation and; for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite
marriage license.
Issue:
Whether or not the judges and personnel of the MTCC and RTC in Cebu City are
guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty or gross inefficiency and
gross misconduct, and in turn, warrant the most severe penalty of dismissal from
service
Ruling:
The Court held that the judges were guilty of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty
and gross ignorance of the law and be dismissed from the service. The Court listed
the following liabilities of the judges: The Court held that the respondent judges
violated Canons 2138 and 6139 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which exact
competence, integrity and probity in the performance of their duties. The Court
previously said that Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence, and where the
law involved is elementary, ignorance thereof is considered as an indication of lack
of integrity. In connection with this, the administration of justice is considered a
sacred task and upon assumption to office, a judge ceases to be an ordinary mortal.
He or she becomes the visible representation of the law and more importantly of
justice. The Court further said that the actuations of these judges are not only
condemnable, it is outright shameful.

AMPARO BUENO, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. RAMON A. RAESES, Respondents.
A.C. No. 8383
December 11, 2012
FACTS:
A complaint was filed on March 3, 1993 for the disbarment of Atty. Ramos Raeses
by his client, Amparo Bueno for the grounds of bribery to the judiciary and failure to
maintain his personal integrity and for failure to maintain public trust. Bueno hired
Atty. Raeses as a legal counsel for a civil case no. 777, with an agreement of Php.
3,000.00 as a retainer fee, and Php. 300.00 for every hearing attended. On top of
which, the lawyer asked his client an additional Php. 15,000.00 that will be divided
to him and Judge Nidea as the presiding judge, with the assurance winning the case.
However, on May 1991, court sheriff was tasked to implement the decision against
her. The client went back to her lawyer, but opted to respond denying his
knowledge against the decision, on which was opposed by through the certification
of receiving copy issued by the court. The complaint was forwarded to the IBP-CBD
scheduled a series of clarificatory hearing on November 16, 2000, January 17, 2001,
and March 14 and May 27, 2003. However, no response was received from the
lawyer in question. Commissioner Limpingco, the substantial justice, presented the
findings to the IBP-CBD absolving of the charge of negligence, but found guilty of
soliciting money to bribe a judge, thus recommending the disbarment due to failure
to maintain his personal integrity and for failure to maintain public trust.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Raeses is guilty of soliciting money to bribe a judge
and failure to maintain his personal integrity and for failure to maintain public trust?
Whether or not these grounds are subject for suspension or disbarment in the legal
profession?
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the complainant, with the recommendation of the IBPCBD and decided that the lawyer should be disbarred with the grounds of bribery
and dishonesty. As per Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers
should serve their clients with competence and diligence. Specifically, Rule 18.02

provides that "[a] lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation." Rule 18.03, on the other hand, states that "[a] lawyer shall not neglect
a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection [therewith] shall
render him liable". The lawyer also committed grave offense, by committing a
fraudulent exaction, and at the same time maligned both the judge and the
Judiciary, which was attested by the investigation of the IBP. The Court considers
that Atty. Raeses merits the ultimate administrative penalty of disbarment because
of the multi-layered impact and implications, by extracting money from his client for
purpose of bribery to the judiciary and misleading the case to his client

JOCELYN DE LEON, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. TYRONE PEDREA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 9401
October 22, 2013
FACTS:
A complaint was filed against ATTY. TYRONE PEDREA by JOCELYN DE LEON due to
overt acts of sexual harassment against his female client . Jocelyn De Leon
requested the representation from the Public Attorneys Office through Atty. Tyrone
Pedrea for a civil case the support of her two children. On January 30, 2006, an
appointment was scheduled by de Leon, which was moved by Atty. Pedreadue to
prior hearing. On their way home, the lawyer offered a ride to the client and the
harassment took place while inside the car. De Leon provided a detailed and
consistent testimony on the event and filed before the IBP Investigating
Commissioner to recommend the disbarment of the said lawyer. As a response, Atty.
Pedrea filed a counter-affidavit with a criminal case for acts of lasciviousness and
his complaint-affidavit for theft, taking the phone of the lawyer while on board of
the car. The IBP then dismissed the criminal case and proceed independently with
the complaint of De Leon which according to them, violated the Rule 1.01 and Rule
7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and provide a recommendation of
suspension for six month from the practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Pedrea was guilty of sexual harassment against his female
client?
Whether or not the lawyer is subject for suspension or disbarment in the practice of
law?
Ruling:

The court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors
and support them with previous cases filed against the lawyers in the ground of
immorality. The court cited that good moral character is essential in the admission
to the Bar and to retain membership in the Legal Profession, as part of their oath in
respect to Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. In their view, the penalty for
suspension was lifted to two years from the practice of law for the grounds of sexual
harassment against his female client effective upon receipt of the decision, and with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more
severely.
Sources:

Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Commission on Bar Discipline: Guidelines for Imposing

Lawyers Sanction

Rule 139-B : Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

Rules of Procedure of the

Commission on Bar Discipline Integrated Bar of the
Philippines

Code of Professional Responsibilities

Supreme Court Decisions

A.C. No. 9390

A.C. No. 9401

A.M No. MTJ-07-1691

A.C. No. 9401