To: Dean Jose I. De la Rama, Jr.

From:
Charmaine Fhaye C. Casquejo
Nestor Fernando T.C. Siazon
3A - UST

Abstract
This is a paper intending to suggest solutions to aid one of the Problem Areas in
Legal Ethics, with regard to the different imposition of penalties to erring lawyers
in the Philippines. The recommendations listed below were based from some
research online and some were concluded based from the discussions
conducted by our professor in Problem Areas in Legal Ethics in UST.

Introduction

Actual punishment of a lawyer can take several forms, depending on the

particular circumstance, including the severity of the offense. Punishment in most
states, however, follows the same basic progression in severity: private
admonition or reprimand, public reprimand, suspension from practice of law for a
set of period of time, and permanent disbarment from the practice of law.
Additionally, the lawyer may also be assessed the cost of the disciplinary
proceedigns, which can run to thousands of dollars. In some cases, a period of
probation with conditions the attorney must satisfy can be imposed in lieu of a
more sever punishment. The disciplinary authority or court, at any stage of the
porcess, may decide against imposing any sanction and dismiss the complaint.
(https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/06/26/5532/misconduct-and-punishment)

Since the court has exclusive responsibility to license lawyers, it has the sole
authority to remove the license. The duration of a suspension should reflect the
nature and extent of the lawyer's misconduct and any mitigating or aggravating

1
circumstances involved. See Rule 10(C). Where the misconduct is so severe that
even a three-year suspension is not adequate, the lawyer should be disbarred.
(http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/lawyer
_ethics_regulation/model_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_enforcement/rule_10.ht
ml)

Based on the presentation of the IBP Governor of Central Luzon, Atty. Jose I. De
la Rama, Jr., L1.M., LTCOL. Which is about the Analysis / Statistics of the Most
Violated Canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility from January 2014 to
December 2015, that involved a total of 97 administrative cases excluding the
cases of judges and other lawyers connected with the Judiciary. It stated there
the following canons commonly violated by lawyers.

50
40
30
20
10 Number of
0 Times Violated

Table 1. Most canons violated from January 2014 to December 2015.

In the above table, it shows that Canon 1 and its Rules is the most violated
canon in the said period, with 40 times cited as violated; followed by Canon 16
and its Rules which was 24 times cited as violated; then Canon 18 with18 times
cited as violated; Violation of the Notarial Law with 12 times cited as violated;
Canon 7 and its Rules with10 times cited as violated; and, Section 27, Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court with10 times cited as violated.

2
With these data, it had also been concluded that different penalties were
imposed to such lawyers with regard to relatively similar cases. Hence, we
humbly proposed some solutions in order for the judiciary to somehow consider
when imposing penalties to lawyers.

Statement of the Problem

What is the proper way to consider in order to have organized imposition of

penalty for misconduct lawyers?

Recommendation 1

Stages of Penalties

Following the rules above, penalties may be given in these stages. These shall
be regardless of whatever kind of violations committed, subject to an exception:

1. Private Reprimand

This is a notice towards the misconduct lawyer, wherein he will be served in

writing either in person or a registered mail containing the court’s order to
reprimand him together with the complaint.

The said lawyer is not left without remedy, he shall be given a chance to
answer or comment regarding the complaint against him prior to the issuance
of Private Reprimand and if the court deemed it proper and hold that he
should not be reprimanded, then no order shall be issued against him.

2. Public Reprimand

3
 A Public Reprimand is a published reprimand against a lawyer through
newspapers or website for a certain period. It shall be considered when a
lawyer receives another complaint whether or not it was received
simultaneously with the first complaint or by a different complainant, for as
long as the lawyer is facing more than 1 complaint and that on the first
complaint, he was privately reprimanded. This is regardless of the period
between the two complaints were given.

3. Suspension from practice of law

Suspension from practice of law shall commence upon after reaching the
public reprimand and the lawyer committed another violation from the Canons
and a complaint was then filed against him, regardless whether it is a same
offense or committed against a same complainant, absent any bad faith on
the part of the latter.

An exception to this is with regard to violation in connection with acts contrary

to morals, as enunciated by our Supreme Court which held that it shall be
stricter with regard to this violation. Hence the Court may skip reprimand
stage and go directly to suspension from the practice of law, the number of
months or years shall depend whether there exist mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.

It is necessary therefore to classify each canons as to whether they are

contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. With this it will be
easier for the court to determine whether an offense should be treated as
grave or not.

4. On Probation

4
 This stage allows the lawyer to rehabilitate and be observed by a competent
official for a certain period of time at the discretion of the court, but shall not
be less than 1 year in order for the lawyer to fully rehabilitate himself. If
however, during the said period the lawyer committed another violation or
that the competent officer deemed him unfit to continue his practice of law;
the officer shall file a report to the court recommending the lawyer for a
disbarment proceeding. If on the other hand the expiration of the period
lapsed already and the latter committed another violation, the lawyer shall be
suspended again from the practice of law.

5. Disbarment

The following may constitute disbarment:

 Repeated violation of Code of Professional Responsibility or Lawyer's

Oath, provided that the lawyer were able to avail of the initial
penalties/warnings above.
 Violation of the Canons coupled with criminal offense with a penalty of
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment

Recommendation 2

Adapting the factors to be considered in imposing penalty for a misconduct

lawyer under Rule 10 (c) on Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement;
the following elements are as follows:

1. Whether the lawyer has violated a duty owed to a client, to the public, to
the legal system, or to the profession;
2. Whether the lawyer acted intentionally, knowingly, or negligently;
3. The amount of the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's
misconduct; and

5
 4. The existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.
(http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/resources/lawyer
_ethics_regulation/model_rules_for_lawyer_disciplinary_enforcement/rule_10.ht
ml)

If all the factors are present then a lawyer may be disbarred, subject to whether
there will be a mitigating circumstance, hence it may cause to lower his
punishment. If any of it is wanting, then the lawyer is subject to suspension from
practice of law. The period of suspension shall depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case as to how many from the elements are wanting.

Recommendation 3

Based on the analysis with regard to the most violated canons for year 2014-
2015, the imposition of penalties may be stricter with regard to these Canons
usually violated by lawyers, to be imposed on the succeeding year of such
analysis. With this data it will give the court the idea on which Canons or
violations are to be given a more serious penalty, at the same time in giving more
severe penalties on Canons usually violated, it will keep lawyers aware of their
conduct whether or not it is serious, and refrain from doing such violation.

Recommendation 4

Website

There should be a website that would show the names of the lawyers when
searched, who have a record of any violations committed while in the practice of
law.(https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/06/26/5532/misconduct-and
punishment)

6
Although this will not generally organize the imposition of penalty, this will serve
as an awareness to the public as regards any concerns they have on their
lawyers.