An M I NISTR AT f\l E LL-\I3 1L1TlE S OF L AWY

ERS 389

ADM INIS TRA TIV E LIABILITIES

OF LAW YER S

PRELIMINARY

Rig ht To Pra ctic e Law Bein g Jus t A Priv

ileg e Is
Bur den ed Wit h Con diti ons .-M emb ersh ip in
the Bar is a
privilege bur den ed vvith C'onditions. By far, the
mos t im-
por tant of them is min dful ness that a lawyer is
an officer
of the cou rt (In: re Jua n T. Publico. 102 SCRA
722 ; Adez
Rea lty vs. Cou rt of App eals . 251 SCRA 201 (199
5]). The
legal prof essi on unli ke any othe r call ing is sub
serv ient to
the cou rt. Cou rts hav e the inhe rent power to ado
pt prop er
and ade qua te mea sure s to pres enre thei r inte
grit y and
rend er pos sibl e and faci litat e the exer cise of
thei r func -
tion s. incl udin g the inve stig atio n of cha rges of
erro r, abu se
or mis con duc t of thei r officials and sub ordi nate
s, incl ud-
ing lawy ers (In re: Para zo. 82 Phil. 230).
Mem bers hip in the Bar bein g mer ely a privilege, 106
the
sam e may be sus pen ded or removed from the
lawyer for
reas ons prov ided in the Rul es , law and juri spru
den ce. The
actu atio ns of la,v-yers are sub ject to scru tiny
at all time s.
The pro fess iona l acti vitie s as well as the lawy
er's priv ate
lives , inso far as the latt er may refle ct unfa vora
bly upo n
the goo d nam e and pres tige of th~ profe~si
o~ and the
cou rts , may at any time be the sub ject of 1nqu
1ry by the
prop er auth orit ies (People vs. And an , CA-G.R.
No. 317 3-R,
May 17 , 1949) . Dis bar men t proc eedi ngs may
b,e anc hore d
on ac t s com m1·tte d i·n or out of cou rt (Syn der s Cas e, 76
ALR 666).
Ith gh not rela ted to the dis-
Gro ss mis con duc t, a_ ou emb er of the Bar , which
char ge of p rofe ssio nal d utie s a s ~ d bt rend ers h im
I
puts his m ora c ara ch ter in sen ou s ou ,
. of law (Melend rez vs.
Unfit to con tinu e in the pra ctic e
Decena, 176 SCRA 662 ).

t ral or cons
105 Prac tice of law is not a na u f anch ise. titut
(1 7
ional righ t:
C.J.S. 708 ,
b · ·1ege or r
ut is in the natu re of a pnv i RA l0).
Bongaionta vs. Cas tillo , 2 40 SC 3
 390 LEGAL ETHIC S

. Adm oniti on And Repr iman d Disti n-

Warn1ng,
A 1 may be warn ed a d mon1· s h e d . repn-·
guishedd.-
mand e , suspeawyd
n e
edr or disba rred fro~ the legal profe ssion .
. . . h
In Tobia s vs. Veloso , the Supr eme Cour t d1stin gu1s ed
repri mand from warn ing and admo nition .

Tobia s vs. Velos o

100 SCRA 177

Held: A warni ng, in ordin ary parla nce, h~s

been define d as an 'act or fact of puttin g one on his
guard again st an impen ding dange r, evil conse -
quenc es or penal ties,· while an admo nition , refe:s to a
gentle or friend ly repro of, mild rebuk e , warn m~ or
remin der, couns elling , on a fault , error or overs ight,
an expre ssion of autho ritativ e advic e or 'warn ing.'
They are not consi dered as penal ties. A reprim and , on
the other hand , is of a more sever e natur e , and has
been define d as a public and forma l censu re or sever e
repro of, admin istere d to a perso n in fault by his su-
perior officer or a body to which he belon gs. It is m ore
than just a warni ng or an admo nition .

The above distin ction s whic h were base d on the Civil

Service Law and the Police Act, have the same conn ota-
tions and mean ings when we spea k of warn ing , admo ni-
tion and repri mand in the legal profe ssion . Whe n the
uneth ical act committed by a lawye r is not so s eriou s, the
Cour t may simp ly warn , admon ish or repr ima nd the
attor ney with a warn ing that the repetition of simil ar act
in the fu t ure will be dealt with severely.
Cen sure is an official repri mand (Bla ck's Law Dic-
tiona ry, 6th Ed. , p . 224). Cens ure and repri mand are
synon ymou s.

_Sus pensi on, Conc ept.- This is the temp orary with-
holdi ng of the lawye r's privilege to pract ice his profe ssion
for a certa in period, or for an indef inite perio d of time.
It is ~~ act of the cour t in proh ibitin g an attor ney
from pract ising law for a defin ite perio d (Archer Ethic al
Oblig ation s of the Lawyer, p. 282). ·
 - • N \. T lV
E, L lA B
lL lT lE .S O F
LAWY E
Indefin RS
Wben W i t e S uspens
a r r a n t e i . 391
the k ey t h
d.-lndef
~n~t1s
chance o t e restora Not
to purg t i o ni eo fs u s p e nas · C r u e l P u n i s
tempt o e h hi hment
r misco imself in h· . i o n g i· v
e s the
exhibitin nd s
g a p p r o u c t b y a ~ s o n g h t b y giVing l a w y e r
priate r w
willingn
ess and e p ec t n o n g ~ o d t i m e o f h i m a
dards re capacity wledgin his con-
q u t ~ g h i s m
yan, 170 ired of ever ~~e, a nd iscondu
ct,
SCRA. l y la demonst
). up t? th r~ting h
wyer lZ e is
aldivar v exacting stan-
Limit O s. Sandi
. f Suspe ganba-
suspens ·
R u l e s o fi o n r e f e r r e d n s i o n F r o m
Court r to in S Practice
of l a w . l e f e r s e c t i o n 2 7 R u lOf Law . - T h e
t w o u l·d o 1 t e 138
penalty b e i m pnr Y o s u s p e n s . ' f th
for a la oper for ion from 0
y e r 's o a w the c the prac e
t h . s u s p y e r 's b r e a c h o f o u r t t o i· tice
Advocat ension legal eth mpose a
from hi
5 0 2 S C Re G e n e r a l ' s S s e m p l o i c s a n d t h e l aswa
A 1). ervice l yment in -
Maligay t h e J u d
a vs. D
oronilla, ge
Disb Jr.,
Suprem arment, Conc
e ep
privilege Court in wit t.-lt is the act
hd of
stricken to practice la rawing from a the Philippine
o w. The n attorn
have th ut from the R name o
f the la y the
e
e r i gh t oll of A
to put i tt wyer is
Neither
can he n his na orneys . And he
sign ple me even d
ally a p p
ear in c adings e the pref oes not
ourt. v e n if h e i x"
d o e s n o At t y . " .
Contem t person
p t -
Things And D
.- isbarme
to disba The power to p n t Are
r are se u n i s h fo T
of o n e d parate a r contem wo Different
oes not nd disti p
vs . Godo exclude nct, and t and the po~er
the exer tha
y, 243 S
CRA 64) c i s e of t t t h e e x e r c i s e
. he other
Who H lPeople
as The
yers?-T Power
To
p o w e r t oh e S u p r e m C o u r t h a sD i s c i p l i n e Erra
e n
a l a w y e r w ar n , a d m o n i.s h r e p r i m a nt hde f u l l a u t h o n~ Lawd-
lSection · , suspen ty
27, Rule 138 d and di an
· RRC). sbar
The Co
urt of A
are also
e m p p e a1s ~ d t h e R e g i o n .
s u sp e n d p o w er e d a dmonis a l T n al Cou
to
an atto
r n e y w hw ' a r s b h , r e p r i m a n d ar t s
efore th
o appe em from nd
the
 39 2 LEG AL ETH I CS

rac tic e of law for an y of the ca

us es me nti on ed in Section
~ 7 . of Ru le 13 8, RRC (S ec tio
n 16 , Ru le 13 9-B , Revised
Ru les of Co urt ). Bu t, the y ca nn
ot dis ba r a law ye r.
An RTC Ju dg e ca nn ot su mm
ari ly su sp en d a lawyer
as pu nis hm en t for co mm itt ing
an ind ire ct co nte mp t. Th at
is no t all ow ed un de r Se cti on
6, Ru le 7 1 of the Ru les of
Co urt (B ala sa ba s vs. Aq uil isa n,
10 6 SC RA 48 9).
Th e inf eri or co ur t s (MTCs) are
no t em po we red even
ju st to su sp en d an att orn ey ,
alt ho ug h, the y ma y cite or
ho ld a law ye r in co nte mp t of co
ur t for co nte mp tuo us ac ts.
Of co urs e , the re is no ne ed to
str es s, th at Ju stices
an d Ju dg es , wh o are als o law ye
rs, if fou nd gu ilt y of cer tain
cri me s an d/ or of the ca us es
for dis ba rm en t un de r the
Ru les of Co urt ma y als o be dis ba
rre d.
Ju sti ce s of the Su pr em e Co ur
t ho we ve r ma y no t be
dis ba rre d un les s an d un til the
y sh all ha ve be en firs t
im pe ac he d in ac co rda nc e wi th
the Co ns titution (Cu en ca
vs. Fe rn an , 15 8 SCRA 29). Th e
sa me is tru e wi th the oth er
im pe ac ha ble officers wh o are me
mb ers of t he Ba r.
Main Ob jec ts Of Di sb ar me nt An
d Su sp en sio n. -T he
ma in ob jec ts of dis ba rm en t an
d su sp en sio n pro ce edings
are : ( 1) to co mp el the a tto rn ey
to de al fai rly an d ho ne stly
wi th his cli en ts; an d (2) to rem
ov e fro m the pro fes sio n a
pe rso n wh os e mi sco nd uc t ha
s pro ve d him un fit to be
en tru ste d wi th the du tie s a n d
res po ns ibi lit ies be lon gin g to
the office of an a ttorn ey (D a roy
vs . Le ga s pi, 6 5 SC RA 30 4;
Di az vs. Ge ron g, 14 1 SC RA 46
); (3) to pu ni sh the lawyer
alt ho ugh no t so mu ch a s t o sa
0
feg ua rd th e ad mi nis tra tio n
~ j u sti ce (D ele s vs.
Ar ag on a, 27 SC RA 63 3; No rie
Sis on , 12 5 SCRA 293); (4) to se ga vs.
t an ex am ple or a wa rni ng
fo r th e oth er m em be rs of the
ba r (C alo vs . De ga mo , 20
SCRA . l l 63) ; (5) to sa feg ua rd the
ad mi nis tra tio n of jus tic e
from inc ompe ten ce an d dis ho
ne sty of law ye rs (Dele s vs.
Ar ago na , Jr. , 27 SCRA 63 3; No
29 3 rie ga vs . Sis on , 12 5 scRA
); (~) to pro tec t th e pu bli c (In
56 2; Sie rvo vs. Inf an te , 73 SC re: Al ma ce n, 31 scRA
84 SC RA 3 5; Sa nt os vs . Dichoso,
RA 62 2; Be rba no vs . Ba rce lonrt
L11 n cr -o " 0
 ADMI NISTRATIVE L
lABILITIEs or L!\WYERS
393

No Private Interes t Is In
Disciplin ary proceed ings involv:o ~:ed :rn Disbarment.-
afford no redress for privat . pnvate interest and
e gnevanc e th
taken an d prosecu ted solely for the -. ey are under-
complain ant or the person who llpubhc welfare, and the
court to the attorney 's alleged :a ed th e attention of the
miscond
party, an d h as generally no interest in uct isin.
no sense a
as all good citizens may have in the th
e outco_m_e except
of justice (Rayos- Ombac vs R proper adminis tration
· ayoS, 285 SCRA 93 [1998]
See also: Roncal vs. Paray, 435 SCRA . ·
Pangani ban, 446 SCRA ). 407, Roldan vs.
249
Whateve r has been decided
a ct·is b arment case
m·

cannot be a source of right that may be enforc d · _

t' l' k
oth er .ac. ion, i e an action for reconvey ance anded in an
C amages
(Esquivia s vs . ourt of Appeals , 272 SCRA 803 [1997]).
Goal Of Disbarm ent .- Restorative justice, not re-
tributive jus tice is the goal in disciplinary proceedings
against lawyers (Gamilla vs . Marino , Jr., 399 SCRA 308) .

Power To Discipli ne Lawyers Is Judicial In Na-

ture.-Th e power to suspend or disbar a lawyer is jud icial
in nature and can be exercise d only by the courts . It
cannot be defea ted by th e legislative or executive depart-
ments (7 C.J .S . 728) . While the legislatu re may provide in
a statute tha t certain a cts may require disbarm ent, such
statute can not restrict the general power of the court over
attorneys who are its officers (Royong vs. Oblena, 7 SCRA
859) . The au thority of the Suprem e Court t~ discipline
lawyers is rooted in its constitu tional prerogative to regu-
late the practice of law and the admissio n of perso~~ to
engage therein [198 7 Con stitution , Art. VIII , Sec. 5 (S) ].
Ch . . f Disbarm ent Proceed ing.-A dis-
b aracten st1cs O . elf It is sui generis. It
arrnent proceed ing is a class by its ·
has the following charact eristics:

- - . scRA so2·. In re: Cunan an.

See: Andres vs. Cabrera . I 2 7
)(17

94 Phi1 ,.... ..
 394 LEGAL ETHICS

1. It is neithe r a civil or a crimin al procee ding (In re:

Monta gne and Domin guez, 3 Phil. 577; In re: Lauret a, 148
SCRA 422; Atty. De Vera vs. Comm issione r Ernest o
Pineda , 213 SCRA 434; Cojuan gco , Jr. vs. Palma , 438
SCRA 306).
2. Double jeopar dy canno t be availed of in a disbar -
ment procee ding agains t an attorne y. Disba rment does not
partak e of a crimin al procee ding. Thus a lawyer who was
found guilty of falsification of public docum ents canno t
put up the defens e of double jeopar dy in the disbar ment
procee ding filed agains t him which is based on the same
facts as the crimin al case (De Jesus- Paras vs. Vailoces,
Adm. Case No. 439, April 12, 1961).
3. It can be initiate d motu proprio by the Suprem e
Court or by the IBP. It can be initiate d withou t a com-
plaina nt.
4. It can procee d regard less of interes t or lack of in-
terest of the compl ainant s, if the facts proven so warran t
(Go vs. Cando y, 21 SCRA 439).

r 5. It is impres criptib le. Unlike ordina ry procee dings,

it is not subjec t to the defens e of prescr iption. The ordi-
nary statute s of limitat ions have no applic ation to disbar -
ment procee dings (Calo vs. Degam o , 20 SCRA 1162; Frias
vs. Bautis ta-Loz ada, 489 SCRA 349; Heck vs. Santos , 423
SCRA 329). However, an unexp lained long delay in the
filing of an admin istrativ e case create s suspic ion in the
motive s of compl ainant . Thus, in Salam anca vs. Bautis ta,
8 SCRA 459 and Valdez vs. Valera , 81 SCRA 246, the
delay, among other factors , was favora bly consid ered and
respon dents were exoner ated.

Heck vs. Santos

423 SCRA 329)

H eld: An admini strative compla int agains t an

erring lawyer who was thereaf ter appoin ted as a
judge, albeit filed only after twenty -four years after
the offendi ng act was commi tted, is not barred by
prescri ption- no matter how much time h as elapsed
 /\ 11MIN1' 1I H/\ ll VI' 1 IAI JI/ .
' , ,ll)I', ' , l jj• 1,/\ Wl(l•, li' , I ( ,..,
,H ~;

lt•llll I ll e l l 11 1i • qi 11 11• <'rn i 1, 111 1 l

HH ')I I fJ I 11 I (' . j(' I 1 I

nl 1111 d 1111 • 111111 • " ' 11 1! · 111 111 II 1 11 nl I IJ · <Hnp ;dnl

H lri , 11, l
,· 11111 ~ 11 1< · 11 il w 1M q f 11,, . 1 • , ' Hllp rd 11 t.
H 111 1J : 11 id Ii· r ..
ll lf' tl l i-w l pl l 11! 11 y :1 111 1 tJ I Il l!' C'r11 1, 1. , 1 <,11 11 10 I c· i-;1•;q w

<,. II I~ ('<1 11<ltl('l ('d ,., 11 1fl 1I r I I

. , , 1, 111 . <· i1 :, ly l)(' f11 g C'on fl ckntla l Jn
111 11111 ( 111 \ tll II H llnnl dl'l (•r 111l11 · II (JJ , ·
I H. 1,!IH '). ' 1 <m ,1 11 (' I. HJ U, St t Uon

7. II IH 11 :-it'II cltt( ' j) l'()( '( 'HS of lr·•w (111

n· : Monta gn e &
,
l)n lll I 1\~ tw z . : \ Phil. :,77).
H. Wllnl, ·v< T l\ 1

• •
1:-, I>.. 1,·,·le1eel. In
iJ dlHbvr m enl case
< < 11 <
rn 111H >I I )<' 11 s o 11n ·,, "' rl11l,1 Iii ·· • I· t· ,1
,-., "• r11:,y ><· ('n orccu 1n an-
.
ol l w r !H'llnt l Ilk,· •·1<·ti 01 1 1·1H• 1<·<·o nvcyc1nc:c and damages
, - •
(l •,sqlllv t:t H v s . ( 'o ll r l ol App<"; il s. 27 '2 SC H.A S0.'3).

~ ). I 11p r,r( dd ict o n ti c· 1:-, 11 0 1 c1 ppll<'a ble (Morfel vs.

/\~pl rns. I 0 0 Plttl. !)HG: Po C lw lll vi-,_ Pizarro , 467 SCI~ I;
S:\ll H\nlt-µ;n v ~. Fern' r. 55!1 SC H/\ I) .

T lw pt n ~1ll y In : 1 d l:--i ln 1r111cn l ('a sc ca nn ot be In lhe al-

!t'r nat Iv<'.

Navar ro vs. Menes es III

'.2H5 ~C W\ !18 6

F'o ct s: l ~l' s p o n cl <·11 I lawyt'r was ch arged with

d ls l)~u·n w nt for cl ls l1 oiH·Hly . Th <' IU P found h im gu ll ly.
T l w d lsposlt l w po r l lo 11 of tl1 C' IUP f{esol ullon reads:

"x xx Hcspn11 dcn l At ly . Hoscnd o Mc-

1H 'St>S Is lw r l'IJy SUSl'E NOEO from l he
p r u<·tl<'l' ol' lc1w for 111 rt'c (;{} y ea rs and Is
fl('rc•l)y dlrc-cl C'd to r t'l urn lh e Fifty Th ou -
s.-in cl !'<·so~ he tT <·elvcd from th e pet II lon er
w it h l n IHl<'<' n ( 15) day s from receip t of t his
r cso lt1 t lo n . F'allurc· on h is p a r t to co m ply
w ill r<'sul t (l)n Ill s DISBA HMENT."

T ile co n fl cl cn tla l 11 a t ure

11 1.-. or
the procee dings can be waived
clP nt lawy er (V illa lon, Jr. vs. IAC . 144 SCRA 443) .
l)y th c. 1-csi1on
•
 LEGAL ET HIC S
39 6

Iss ue : Whe th er a pe na lty in the alt ern ati ve is

proper.
H eld· D1. spos1•t·o
1 n of thi s na tur e sho uld be
. · he im po sit ion of pe na ltie .
avo1de~. In \on g be en the rul s in cn mi na l
cas es , it ha s e tha t the pe na lty im -
ose d in a jud gm en t can no t be in the alt ern ati ve
P ·f th . . ,
even 1 e 1aw pro vid es for alt ern ati ve pe na ltie s , no r
can sue h pe na lty b e su bie
J
ct to a cond1t· 10n·
. Th ere 1s
·
•
no rea son w h Y Su c h leg al pri nc ipl es 1n pe na l law
sho uld no t app ly in adm ini str . . . .
ati ve_ d1 sc1 ph nar y. ~c-
. ns wh.1c h as 1·n th1's ca se
t10 , , als o mv olv ed pu mt ive
san cti on s. Lawyer is dis ba rre d.

Re str ict ion s On Th e Po we r

To Su sp en d And Dis-
ba r .-T he co ur ts sh ou ld ex
ercise so un d dis cre tio n and
extreme care in su sp en din g or
di sb ar rin g lawyers. Such
power is no t arb itr ary or despoti
c on e to be exercised at
the ple as ur e of the co ur t or in
th e form of pa ssi on , preju-
dice or personal hostility. It sh ou
ld be ex erc ise d wisely in
su ch a way th at the rig hts an d
in de pe nd en ce of the Bar
will be sc ru pu lou sly gu ar de d an
d ma in tai ne d by th e court
as the rights an d dignity of th
e co ur t itself. Th e courts
sh ou ld su sp en d or di sb ar a law
yer on ly wh er e th e courts
find th at co nti nu an ce of th e att
or ne y in pr ac tic e would be
subversive to the pr op er re sp ec
t of th e co ur t for its elf or a
pr op er reg ard for th e int eg rit y
of th e pr of es sio n (5 Am.
Ju r. 413; Martin, Legal Et hic s,
1988 Ed ., p . 233-234) .
The co ur t sh ou ld als o ex erc ise
a so un d di sc re tio n in
de ter mi nin g wh eth er a law ye
r sh ou ld be di sb ar re d or
merely su sp en de d. It sh ou ld be
ar in m in d th at ad mi ssion
to the Ba r is ob tai ne d on ly af
ter ye ar s of lab or an d study
an d th e office ac qu ire d of ten
be co me s th e s ou rc e of great
ho no r an d em ol um en t to its po
ss es so r. To mo st m embe rs
of th e legal pr of es sio n, it is
the ms elv es an d the · l'. •u th e m ea ns of s up port for
. . rr 1am1 es . To de pr ive one
~ffice is ~ften to decre of su ch an
e poverty to the lawyer and destt
~on to his family. Disb ar men t th tu-
er efore sh ou ld never be
ec re ed . wh er e an y les se r pe
na lty su ~h as tem porarY
suspension, would accomp lis h th
e e~d de sir ed (B ra dley vs .
 S cs rE,·s 1O , . OR D
G RO U!'-iDS FOR
'' ·' ISBAR\ 1E~"T OF 3 97
ME\1BERS OF TH E B,-\R

Fisher, 20 ed. 64 8 ; Martin , Legal Et hics . 19 88 Ed .. p .

235) .

The Power To Disbar Must Be Exercised With Cau-

tion.-The power to disbar attorneys must alway s be
exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of
misconduct which seri.ously affects the s tanding and
character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and
member of the bar (Siervo vs. Infante , 73 SCRA 35). 109
In the last analysis , the lawyer's good name is his
most important possession (Ibanez vs. Vina , 107 SCRA
607). The lawyer's reputation is likened to a plant of ten-
der growth , and its bloom, once lost , is not easi.ly restored
(Albano vs. Coloma, 21 SCRA 411 ; Bayot vs . Blanca , 65
SCRA 538).
Consequently, the power of the court to discipline
lawyers should not be exercised in an arbitrary and des-
potic manner. It must not be exercised either at the pleas-
ure of the court or from passion, prejudice or personal
hostility. Rather, it must be exercised with caution and
moderation under a sound and just judicial discretion ,
whereby the independence of the bar and its rights shall
be guarded scrupulously by the court as the righ t s and
dignity of the cou rt itself (see In re: De Lara, 27 Phil. l 76;
Andres vs. Cabrera, 127 SCRA 802).

GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT

OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR

Specific Grounds Under The Rules ~f Court.-.Th e

folloWin g a r e s pecific grou n d s for s u spension or dis bar-
ment of a lawyer -

1. Deceit;

109
450 SCRA 510; B uado vs. Layag,
See: Amaya vs. Tecson , SCRA 58 2 ; Ger ona vs .
43 6 SCRA 159; Dantes vs. Dantes ,_ 438vs Castillo, 3 98 SCRA
Datingaling , 398 SCRA 148; Zagwrre 1 7 .
6 5 8 ; Santos , Sr. v s . Beltran , 418 scRA ·