Grounds for disciplinary

proceedings against lawyers

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Arellano University School of Law Arellano Law
Foundation
2015-2016

Supreme Court is neither bound by the

findings of the IBP
Respondent must know that the Court is neither bound by the
findings of the IBP nor, much less, obliged to accept the same
as a matter of course because as the Tribunal which has the
final say on the proper sanctions to be imposed on errant
members of both bench and bar, the Court has the prerogative
of making its own findings and rendering judgment on the basis
thereof rather than that of the IBP, OSG, or any lower court to
whom an administrative complaint has been referred to for
investigation and report. Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No.

2614. June 29, 2000

Continuous display and use of the title

Attorney-at-lawafter disbarment
Complainant claims that respondent misrepresented himself as an
"Atty." in the wedding invitation of his son, and a signboard
hanging outside the respondent's office display the title
"Attorney-at-Law under respondent's name.
Lastly, complainant informs the Court that she had received reports
that respondent continues in the practice of law by making other
lawyers sign the pleadings that he prepares for cases involving
his clients. Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores vs.

Enrique S. Chua) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Resolution

On this matter, the Court is of the view that the title "Atty." preceding
respondent's name in his son's wedding invitation, and the signboard
outside his office bearing his name and the words "Attorney-at-Law"
are not evidence sufficient to convince this Court that respondent
continues in the practice of law, in violation Court's Decision dated
April 30, 1999 that ordered his disbarment.
Neither is the Court swayed by the complainant's allegations of
respondent's continuous practice of law based on mere "reports."
Without more, these reports are pure hearsay and are without
evidentiary value.
Nonetheless, respondent is hereby ORDERED to remove the signboard
outside his office showing his name and the words "Attorney-at-Law. -

Resolution A.C. No. 4500 (Ban Hua U. Flores vs. Enrique S. Chua)
SEPTEMBER 9, 2014

Guidelines to be observed in the matter of the

lifting of an order suspending a lawyer from
the practice of law
1) After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from
the practice of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the
penalty;
2) Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is
immediately executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has
15 days within which to file a motion for reconsideration
thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision final
and executory;
3) Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall
file a Sworn Statement with the Court, through the Office of the
Bar Confidant, stating therein that he or she has desisted from the
practice of law and has not appeared in any court during the
period of his or her suspension;

Cont
4) Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local
Chapter of the IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where
respondent has pending cases handled by him or her, and/or
where he or she has appeared as counsel;
5) The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension;
6) Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the
lawyer under oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more
severe punishment, or disbarment, as may be warranted. -

Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

Lifting of a lawyers suspension

is not automatic
The lifting of a lawyers suspension is not automatic upon the
end of the period stated in the Courts decision, and an order
from the Court lifting the suspension at the end of the period
is necessary in order to enable [him] to resume the practice of
his profession. Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472,

March 30, 2010

Supreme Court can choose not to refer

complaint to IBP
In administrative cases against lawyers, the burden of proof rests
upon the complainant. Administrative complaints that are
prima facie groundless as shown by the pleadings filed by the
parties need not be referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for further investigation. They may be summarily
dismissed for utter lack of merit.
The Court normally refers administrative cases to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Considering, however, that the question
being raised is simple and that no further factual
determination is necessary, the Court resolves to dispense with
such referral and to decide the case on the basis of the
extensive pleadings already on record, which all show the lack of
merit of the Complaint. - Manubay v. Atty. Garcia, A.C. No.

4700 [2000]

Confidentiality
Rules of Court Rule 139-B Sec. 18. Confidentiality. - Proceedings
against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the
final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its
decisions in other cases.
Rules of Court Rule 140 SEC. 12. Confidentiality of proceedings.
Proceedings against Judges of regular and special courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be
private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution
of the court shall be attached to the record of the respondent
in the Office of the Court Administrator. - A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC

RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF

COURT RE: DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES [took
effect on October 1, 2001]

Suspension of attorney by CA and RTC

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or
Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may
suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in
Rule 138, Section 27, until further action of the Supreme Court in the
case.
Rule 139-B Sec. 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional
Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court. - Upon such
suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall
forthwith transmit to the Supreme Court a certified copy of the order
of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same
was based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the
Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may
revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as
the facts may warrant.

10

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of

Court, as amended by Supreme Court
Resolution dated February 13, 1992
Section 27. Disbarment or 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:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

any deceit,
malpractice,
other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct,
by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice,
7. for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party to a case
without authority to do so.
The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

11

Disbarment or suspension in a foreign

jurisdiction
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine
Bar by a competent court or other disciplinary agency in a
foreign jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an
attorney is a ground for his disbarment or suspension if the
basis of such action includes any of the acts hereinabove
enumerated [Section 27 of Rule 138 of our Rules of Court]. -

Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006

12

Judgment of a foreign court is only

prima facie evidence
The disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar
by a competent court or other disciplinatory agency in a foreign
jurisdiction where he has also been admitted as an attorney is a
ground for his disbarment or suspension if the basis of such
action includes any of the acts hereinabove enumerated.
The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or
disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground
for disbarment or suspension. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793

[2004]

13

The basis of the foreign court's action must

include any of the grounds for disbarment or
suspension in this jurisdiction I
It bears stressing that the Guam Superior Court's judgment
ordering Maquera's suspension from the practice of law in Guam
does not automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in
the Philippines.
Under Section 27,34 Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, the
acts which led to his suspension in Guam are mere grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction, at that only if the
basis of the foreign court's action includes any of the grounds
for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction. - In re: Atty.

Maquera B.M. No. 793 [2004]

14

The basis of the foreign court's action must

include any of the grounds for disbarment
or suspension in this jurisdiction II
In Maquera, we emphasized that the judgment of suspension
against a Filipino lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction does not
automatically result in his suspension or disbarment in the
Philippines as the acts giving rise to his suspension are not
grounds for disbarment and suspension in this jurisdiction.
Judgment of suspension against a Filipino lawyer may transmute
into a similar judgment of suspension in the Philippines only if
the basis of the foreign courts action includes any of the
grounds for disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction.
We likewise held that the judgment of the foreign court merely
constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. -

Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July 25, 2006

15

Defenses
The Maquera ruling is consistent with Rule 39, Section 48, of the Rules of
Court which provides:
Sec. 48.
Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. - The effect
of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as
follows:
xxxx

(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the

judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of
a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697 July

25, 2006

16

Ex parte investigation valid

Likewise, the judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only
constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's unethical acts as
a lawyer. More fundamentally, due process demands that he be
given the opportunity to defend himself and to present
testimonial and documentary evidence on the matter in an
investigation to be conducted in accordance with Rule 139-B of
the Revised Rules of Court. Said rule mandates that a
respondent lawyer must in all cases be notified of the charges
against him. It is only after reasonable notice and failure on
the part of the respondent lawyer to appear during the
scheduled investigation that an investigation may be
conducted ex parte. - In re: Atty. Maquera B.M. No. 793

[2004]

17

Misconduct pertaining to another

profession
Respondent is a CPA-lawyer who is actively practicing both professions.
He is the senior partner of his law and accounting firms which carry his
name. He is charged for allowing his accounting firm to represent two
creditors of the estate and, at the same time, allowing his law firm to
represent the estate in the proceedings where these claims were
presented.
Respondent advances the defense that assuming there was conflict of
interest, he could not be charged before this Court as his alleged
misconduct pertains to his accounting practice.
Even granting that respondents misconduct refers to his accountancy
practice, it would not prevent this Court from disciplining him as a
member of the Bar. The rule is settled that a lawyer may be
suspended or disbarred for ANY misconduct, even if it pertains to his
private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral
character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. - Nakpil v. Valdes, A.C.

No. 2040 [1998]

18

Respondent lawyer cannot hide behind

the corporate veil
This Court holds that respondent cannot invoke the separate
personality of the corporation to absolve him from exercising
these duties over the properties turned over to him by
complainant. He blatantly used the corporate veil to defeat
his fiduciary obligation to his client, the complainant.
Toleration of such fraudulent conduct was never the reason for
the creation of said corporate fiction. - Cordon v. Atty.

Balicante, A.C. No. 2797 October 4, 2002

19

Judgment from the RTC not needed in IBP

investigation
The Court need not delve into the question of whether or not
respondent did contract a bigamous marriage, a matter which
apparently is still pending with the Regional Trial Court of
Pasig City. It is enough that the records of this
administrative case sufficiently substantiate the findings of
the Investigating Commissioner, as well as the IBP Board of
Governors, i.e., that indeed respondent has been carrying on an
illicit affair with a married woman, grossly immoral conduct and
only indicative of an extremely low regard for the fundamental
ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him
regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and
privileges which his license confers upon him. - Tucay v. Atty.

Tucay, A.C. No. 5170 [1999]

20

Marrying in good faith a married

lawyer not immoral
All these taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion
that respondent was imprudent in managing her personal
affairs. However, the fact remains that her relationship with
Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a
valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality
connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of
society and the opinion of good and respectable members of
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant
disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly immoral," that is,
it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. - Ui v.

Atty. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319. June 8, 2000

21

Anonymous complaints
Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution.
They should not be dismissed outright, however, where their
averments may be easily verified and may, without much
difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent
evidence. - Sinsuat and Paps v. Judge Hidalgo, A.M. No. RTJ-

08-2133, August 6, 2008

22

Forum shopping
Forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings,
not to disbarment proceedings. - Quirino Tomlin II v. Atty.

Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006

23

Acquittal of respondent of the criminal

charge is not a bar to administrative
proceedings.
The acquittal of respondent Ramos [of] the criminal charge is not a
bar to these [administrative] proceedings. The standards of legal
profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one
to escape the penalties of x x x criminal law. Moreover, this Court,
in disbarment proceedings is acting in an entirely different capacity
from that which courts assume in trying criminal case (Italics in
the original). (Joselano Guevara v. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C.
no. 7136, August 1, 2007)

24

Administrative complaint against a

member of the bar does not prescribe
Indeed, we have held that an administrative complaint against a
member of the bar does not prescribe. (Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty.
Renato L. Gonzalez, A.C. no. 6634, August 23, 2007)

25

Indefinite suspension
This, we are empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence
grants us discretion on the matter but also because, even
without the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that
if we have authority to completely exclude a person from the
practice of law, there is no reason why indefinite suspension,
which is lesser in degree and effect, can be regarded as falling
outside of the compass of that authority. The merit of this
choice is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to
[respondent] to determine for himself how long or how
short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the
suspension becomes effective he may prove to this Court that
he is once again fit to resume the practice of law. - (In re: Atty
Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970)

26

Indefinite suspension
The indefiniteness of respondents suspension, far from being
"cruel" or "degrading" or "inhuman" has the effect of placing, as
it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as
a lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving
respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time
of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such
misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and
demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the
exacting standards of conduct rightly demanded from every
member of the bar and officer of the courts.
Xxx the indefiniteness of respondents suspension puts in his
hands the key for the restoration of his rights and privileges
as a lawyer. - Dumadag v. Atty. Lumaya, A.C. No. 2614. June

29, 2000

27

Censure or reprimand
Censure or reprimand is usually meted out for an isolated act
of misconduct of a lesser nature. It is also imposed for some
minor infraction of the lawyers duty to the court or the client. -

Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C. No.

7204 [2007]

28

Kissing complainant on the lips not

grossly immoral

Moreover, while respondent admitted having kissed complainant on the

lips, the same was not motivated by malice. We come to this conclusion
because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance at being
kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message,
respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also via
cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages between
complainant and respondent bears this out.
Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were
several people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a
major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious
designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or
a more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.
All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondents acts are not
grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or
suspension. - Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M. Macabata, A.C. No.

7204 [2007]

29

Non-injured party can file a complaint

The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined
to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining
suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment
proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for
judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charge. The
evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on
Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and
recommended sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III,

CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998

30

Alternative penalty not allowed

A note and advice on the penalty imposed in the resolution is in
order. The dispositive portion thereof provides that:
x x x Respondent Atty. Rosendo Meneses is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for three (3) years and is hereby directed
to return the Fifty Thousand Pesos he received from the petitioner
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this resolution. Failure on
his part to comply will result (i)n his DISBARMENT.

In other words, it effectively purports to impose either a 3-year

suspension or disbarment, depending on whether or not
respondent duly returns the amount to complainant. Viewed from
another angle, it directs that he shall only be suspended, subject
to the condition that he should make restitution as prescribed
therein. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313.

January 30, 1998]

31

Cont
Dispositions of this nature should be avoided. In the
imposition of penalties in criminal cases, it has long been the
rule that the penalty imposed in a judgment cannot be in the
alternative, even if the law provides for alternative penalties, not
can such penalty be subject to a condition. There is no reason
why such legal principles in penal law should not apply in
administrative disciplinary actions which, as in this case, also
involve punitive sanctions. - Atty. Navarro v. Atty. Meneses III,

CBD A.C. No. 313. January 30, 1998]

32

Misconduct as a government official

As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office
may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for
misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
official. However, if that misconduct as a government official is
of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer
or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such ground. Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco,

A.C. No. 2995. Noveernment officialmber 27, 1996

33

Res judicata does not apply in

administrative proceeding
The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or
quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of the
[Courts] administrative powers.- Dinsay v. Atty. Cioco, A.C. No.

2995. November 27, 1996

While respondent is in effect being indicted twice for the same

misconduct, it does not amount to double jeopardy as both
proceedings are admittedly administrative in nature. - Dinsay v.

Atty. Cioco, A.C. No. 2995. November 27, 1996

34

A finding of grave misconduct in the

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE would not be determinative
of the guilt or innocence of the respondent in a
criminal proceeding
The issue in the FALSIFICATION CASE is whether or not the
SHERIFFS had unlawfully and feloniously made an alteration or
intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning in
violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Dinsay v.

Cioco and Atty. Belleza, A.M. No. R-252-P December 12, 1986

35

Definition of Unprofessional conduct

Unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the
rules on ethical code of his profession or which is unbecoming a
member of that profession. - Velez v. Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.

6697 July 25, 2006

36

Indirect contempt does not involve

moral turpitude
The act for which he was found guilty of indirect contempt does
not involve moral turpitude.
In this case, it cannot be said that the act of expressing ones
opinion on a public interest issue can be considered as an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity. Respondent De Vera did not bring
suffering nor cause undue injury or harm to the public when he
voiced his views on the Plunder Law. Consequently, there is no
basis for petitioner to invoke the administrative case as evidence of
respondent De Veras alleged immorality. - In re: Petition to

Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

37

No final judgment yet

On the administrative complaint that was filed against
respondent De Vera while he was still practicing law in
California, he explained that no final judgment was rendered
by the California Supreme Court finding him guilty of the
charge. He surrendered his license to protest the discrimination
he suffered at the hands of the investigator and he found it
impractical to pursue the case to the end.
We find these explanations satisfactory in the absence of
contrary proof. It is a basic rule on evidence that he who
alleges a fact has the burden to prove the same. In this case,
the petitioners have not shown how the administrative
complaint affects respondent De Veras moral fitness to run for
governor. In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera, A.C. No.

6052. December 11, 2003

38

Sexual relations between two

unmmaried and consenting adults
Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and
consenting adults are not enough to warrant administrative
sanction for illicit behavior. The Court has repeatedly held that
voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not
married, where both are not under any impediment to marry
and where no deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an
unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment or
disciplinary action.
While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and,
to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our
authority to decide on matters touching on employees
personal lives, especially those that will affect their and their
familys future. We cannot intrude into the question of whether
they should or should not marry. - Abanag v. Mabute, A.M.

No. P-11-2922, 2011

39

Estrada v. Escritor case

Respondent, court interpreter in said court, was investigated for
living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child
within this live-in arrangement. Complainant believes that [the
court interpreter] is committing an immoral act that tarnishes
the image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to
remain employed therein as it might appear that the court
condones her act. Consequently, respondent was charged with
committing "disgraceful and immoral conduct. - Estrada v.

Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

40

Cont
She admitted that she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.
without the benefit of marriage more than twenty years ago
when her husband was still alive but living with another woman.
She also admitted that she and Quilapio have a son. But as a
member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, respondent
asserted that their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with
their religious beliefs and has the approval of her
congregation.
Invoking the religious beliefs, practices and moral standards of
her congregation, she asserts that her conjugal arrangement
does not constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct for
which she should be held administratively liable. - Estrada v.

Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651

August 4, 2003

41

Cont
Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these
distinct circumstances, respondents conjugal arrangement
cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for
exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to
freedom of religion. The Court recognizes that state interests
must be upheld in order that freedoms - including religious
freedom - may be enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as a
preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought
to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode
the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In
the absence of a showing that such state interest exists, man
must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.- Estrada v. Escritor,

A.M. No. P-02-1651

August 4, 2003

42

Penalties imposed in administrative cases

[judiciary] are immediately executory
We stressed that when suspension is "to take effect immediately",
this Court means that the period of suspension should commence
on the day respondent judge receives notice of the decision
suspending him from office.
While this does not preclude the filing by respondent judge of a
motion for reconsideration, the filing and pendency of such a
motion does not have the effect of staying the suspension order.
Dr. Alday v. Judge Cruz, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530. February 4, 2002

43

Penalties imposed in administrative

cases [of lawyers] are
NOT immediately executory
Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately
executory upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within
which to file a motion for reconsideration thereof. The denial of
said motion shall render the decision final and executory. -

Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472, March 30, 2010

44

Res Judicata applies

The Investigating Commissioner properly dismissed the
complaint in this case on the ground of res judicata, it
appearing that it involves the same incident and the same
cause of action as Administrative Case No. 3825. Indeed, it
appears that on August 5, 1995, the First Division of the Court
dismissed a similar complaint filed in Administrative Case No.
3835. Halimao v. Atty. Villanueva, A.C. No. 3825. February

1, 1996

45

Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative

Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals
and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and
Special Courts
AM. No. 02-9-02-SC. This resolution, entitled Re: Automatic
Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and
Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members
of the Philippine Bar.

46

Cont
Under the same rule, a respondent may forthwith be required to
comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as member
of the Bar. xxx In other words, an order to comment on the
complaint is an order to give an explanation on why he should not
be held administratively liable not only as a member of the bench
but also as a member of the bar.
This is the fair and reasonable meaning of automatic conversion of
administrative cases against justices and judges to disciplinary
proceedings against them as lawyers. This will also serve the purpose
of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary
replication of actions by treating an administrative complaint filed
against a member of the bench also as a disciplinary proceeding

against him as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule.

Campos, et. al. v. Atty. Campos, A.C. No. 8644, January 22,
2014
47

Definition of Unbecoming conduct

Unbecoming conduct applies to a broader range of
transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical
practice or logical procedure or prescribed method.- ASP

Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justice Ong, et. al.,A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J

April 12, 2011

48

Unlimited grounds for suspension or

disbarment
A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him
to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good
condition precedent to the practice of law but also a good
qualification for all members of the bar. -Manaois v. Deciembre,

A.M. Case No. 5564, August 20, 2008

49

To ensure competence after

reinstatement
Xxx in view of the numerous changes in the law since 1959,
respondent movant should offer some guarantee of his ability
to render adequate service to his prospective clients; the
Court resolved that respondent movant Carlos C. Rusiana be, as
he is hereby required, to enroll in, and pass, regular fourth
year review classes in a recognized law school. - In Re:

Administrative Case Against Atty. Carlos C. Rusiana of Cebu

City. A.C. No. 270 March 29, 1974

50

SC acting as an administrative tribunal,

cannot review the trial courts decision
At the outset, it should be emphasized that this Court, acting as an
administrative tribunal, cannot review the trial courts decision.

Belga v. Buban, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1512. May 9, 2000

51

Breached of promise to marry not

subject to sanction
Complainant filed the instant petition averring that respondent
and she had been sweethearts, that a child out of wedlock was
born to them and that respondent did not fulfill his repeated
promises to marry her.
We cannot castigate a man for seeking out the partner of his
dreams, for marriage is a sacred and perpetual bond which
should be entered into because of love, not for any other
reason. Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519 July 31,

1997

52

Desistance cannot stop a disciplinary

investigation
The aforesaid letter hardly deserves consideration as
proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted by reason of
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of
the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the
same. - Section 5, Rule 139-B, Rules of Court

53

Reconciliation of parties or amicable

settlement
Therefore, in the instant case, the Court cannot just set aside
the finding of culpability against the respondents merely
because the complainants have decided to forgive them or
settle matters amicably after the case was completely
evaluated and reviewed by the IBP.
The complainants forgiveness or even withdrawal from the case
does not ipso facto obliterate the misconduct committed by
Francisco. To begin with, it is already too late in the day for the
complainants to withdraw the disbarment case considering that
they had already presented and supported their claims with
convincing and credible evidence, and the IBP has
promulgated a resolution on the basis thereof. Sps. Amatorio

v. Atty. F. Yap & Atty. W. Yap, A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015

54

Ex-parte investigation allowed

An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when
respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.

Cottam v. Atty. Laysa, A.C. No. 4834 February 29, 2000

Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court Sec. 8. Investigation. Upon

joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer,
the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the
investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue
subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given
full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his
behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon
reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.

55

Affidavit stands in lieu complainants

testimony
As for complainants failure to testify on her own behalf, this is
of no moment. Complainants affidavit stands in lieu of her
testimony; the investigating judge even had her re-subscribe
and re-affirm her sworn statement and let the same be adopted
as part of complainants evidence. Liwanag v. Judge Lustre,

A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168. April 21, 1999

56

Disciplinary authority v. Judicial action

It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls
within the disciplinary authority of the Court or whether the
matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. If
the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of
conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority.
However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or
criminal liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry
into the moral fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a
proper subject of a judicial action which is understandably
outside the purview of the Courts disciplinary authority.

Felipe, et. al. v. Atty. Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 02,
2013

57

WON the money should be returned to

complainant
It is imperative to first determine whether the matter falls
within the disciplinary authority of the Court OR whether the
matter is a proper subject of judicial action against lawyers. -

Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 August 14, 2012

58

Cont
If the matter involves violations of the lawyers oath and code of
conduct, then it falls within the Courts disciplinary authority.
However, if the matter arose from acts which carry civil or criminal
liability, and which do not directly require an inquiry into the moral
fitness of the lawyer, then the matter would be a proper subject of a
judicial action which is understandably outside the purview of the
Courts disciplinary authority.

Thus, we hold that when the matter subject of the inquiry pertains to
the mental and moral fitness of the respondent to remain as member
of the legal fraternity, the issue of whether the respondent be directed
to return the amount received from his client shall be deemed within
the Courts disciplinary authority. Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C.

No. 9074 August 14, 2012

59

Sui generis principle

It should be emphasized that a finding of guilt in the criminal case will
not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.
Conversely, respondents acquittal does not necessarily exculpate him
administratively.
In the same vein, the trial courts finding of civil liability against the
respondent will not inexorably lead to a similar finding in the
administrative action before this Court. Neither will a favorable
disposition in the civil action absolve the administrative liability of the
lawyer.
The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether
different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the
first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. -

Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No.

4017. September 29, 1999

60

Beso-beso is merely a form of

greeting, casual and customary in nature
Judge Acosta's acts of bussing Atty. Aquino on her cheek were
merely forms of greetings, casual and customary in nature. No
evidence of intent to sexually harass complainant was apparent,
only that the innocent acts of 'beso-beso' were given malicious
connotations by the complainant. Atty. Aquino v. Justice Acosta,

A.M. No. CTA-01-1. April 2, 2002

61

Quantum of evidence ]judges]

The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be
established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where
the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in
office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, etc. The
general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal
trials apply.- OCA v. Judge Pascual, A.M. No. MTJ-93-783.

July 29, 1996

62

Quantum of evidence [judges]

As a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in
deciding administrative cases. Only substantial evidence is
required, as clearly provided for under Rule 133 of the Revised
Rules of Evidence:
Sec 5. Substantial evidence. -- In cases filed before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that
amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.- Liwanag v. Judge

Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168. April 21, 1999

63

Quantum of evidence [lawyers]

Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their
own. They are distinct from and they may proceed
independently of civil and criminal cases.
The burden of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal
case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an
administrative case for disbarment or suspension, clearly
preponderant evidence is all that is required. Thus, a criminal
prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if
the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the
administrative proceedings. Gatchalian Promotions Talents

Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, A.C. No. 4017. September 29,

1999

64

Absolute pardon
An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed, but
removes all disabilities resulting from the conviction. In the case of In
re Marcelino Lontok, the Court, in dismissing the disbarment
proceeding against the respondent therein, who had been convicted of
bigamy, a crime involving moral turpitude, upon the ground that the
respondent had been granted plenary pardon for his crime, applied the
rule that "a person reaches both the punishment prescribed for the
offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it
releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in
the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never
committed the crime," and, "if granted before conviction, it prevents
any of the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil
rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man and gives him a new credit
and capacity. - In re:Atty. Rovero, A.M. No. 126 December 29, 1980

65

Application of Res Ipsa Loquitor

doctrine
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose
its authority upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face,
would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or
misconduct. Atty. Macalintal v. Judge the, A.M. No. RTJ-97-

1375 October 16, 1997

66

Preventive suspension for erring

lawyer
Rule 139-B Sec. 15. Suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court.
- After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period
therefor, the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of
the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the
Investigator, may suspend an attorney from the practice of his
profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section
27, during the pendency of the investigation until such
suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.

67

Preventive suspension not applicable

to judges
Based on the foregoing disquisition, the Court is of the resolve
that, while it is true that preventive suspension pendente lite
does not violate the right of the accused to be presumed
innocent as the same is not a penalty, the rules on preventive
suspension of judges, not having been expressly included in
the Rules of Court, are amorphous at best. Re: Conviction of

Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January 31, 2008

68

CA or RTC may suspend an attorney

Rule 139-B Sec. 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of
Appeals or Regional Trial Court. - The Court of Appeals or
Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice
for any of the causes named in Rule 138, Section 27, until
further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

69

Thank you for your attention!!

70