The Integrated Bar of the

Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline

(Understanding its role in the discipline of lawyers in the Philippines)
 Law: A Noble Profession
 
Similar to other professions, the practice of law demands high ethical standards
and principles. Lawyers are expected to maintain themselves in the highest form of
decorum and etiquette at all times. As a noble profession, in essence, it is deemed a
service-oriented and noble profession and is not like any commercial undertaking
operating on the law of demand and supply.

Roscoe Pound* highlighted the essence of the present matter: "Historically, there
are three ideas involved in a profession: organization, learning, and a spirit of public
service. These are essential. The remaining idea, that of gaining a livelihood, is
incidental." 

*American jurist, botanist, and educator, chief advocate of “sociological jurisprudence” and a leader in the reform of court
administration in the United States.
 
 The Four-Fold Duties of a Lawyer
 
The principle that the law profession is a noble one springs from the
engraved fact that a lawyer’s duty is four-folds:

(i) to the public or society,

(ii) (ii) to the court,
(iii) (iii) to the bar or colleagues, and
(iv) (iv) to client.
 Standards for a Lawyer

Due to lawyers’ special and unique role in societal reforms and their close
involvement in the administration of law, lawyers are subject to special standards. An
action of a lawyer that goes beyond or against the standards makes the lawyer liable for
sanctions set by law. This aspect of the law profession is sometimes called legal ethics or
professional responsibility.  

In the Philippines, every lawyer is expected to act in compliance with The Lawyer’s
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. For, without these standards, lawyers
would be at the risk of committing acts which divest them of moral fitness for the practice
of their profession.
 Discipline of Attorneys, Vested in the Supreme Court
 

Justice J.B.L. Reyes’ famous words as follows: “No master but law, No guide but
conscience, No aim but justice”. This is also the motto of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the national organization of professional lawyers in the Philippines.

To ensure that lawyers act accordingly, Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the
1987 Constitution confers upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate
rules concerning the admission to the practice of law. The Supreme Court's power
relating to the admission to the practice of law inherently includes the power to
discipline and remove from the rolls, lawyers who have transgressed their oath
and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The Rules of Court, more particularly, Rule 139-B thereof, provides the
following rules on Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys, to wit:
 
“Section 1. How Instituted. - Proceedings for the
disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court motu propio, or upon the
filing of a verified complaint of any person before the
Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP). The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the
facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits
of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein
alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate
said facts.”
BAR MATTER N0. 1645
(RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B), dated October 13, 2015
 
1.  Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution confers upon the Supreme
Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the
practice of law.
 
2.  The Supreme Court's power relating to the admission to the practice of
law inherently includes the power to discipline and remove from the rolls,
lawyers who have transgressed their oath and violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
 
3.  Dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power of the Supreme
Court that cannot be delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
 
4.  The motive of the complainant and his or her action/inaction after the
filing of a verified complaint against a lawyer are not essential to the
proceedings.
•Supreme Court
•IBP Board of Governors

•Commission on Bar Discipline

•IBP Chapter

•Office of the Bar Confidant

Governing Rules

(1) Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

(2) Bar Matter No. 1755 RE: RULES OF PROCEDURE

IN CBD

(3) Bar Matter No. 1645

 Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court

WHO MAY (1) Supreme Court motu propio, or

INSTITUTE (2) Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any
person
(3) IBP Board of Governors may, motu
propio or upon referral by the Supreme
Court or by a Chapter Board of Officers,
or at the instance of any person
At the instance of any person:

the person who called the attention of the court to a

lawyer’s misconduct “is in no sense a party, and generally
has no interest in the outcome” (Sebastian v. Bajar, 559 Phil.
211, 225 (2007)
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 the judgment is the proof or failure of
proof of the charges. (Nestor Figueras, et al. vs. Atty.
Diosdado Jimenez, A.C. No. 9116, March 12, 2014.)
Subject of Complaint:
Professional or private acts of lawyers

Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers

may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. This penalty is a
consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as officers of
the courts; as well as their lack of moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct committed
outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them
to be morally unfit for the office and the privileges conferred
upon them by their license and the law, they may be suspended
or disbarred.” (Gonzales vs. Atty. Alcaraz, A.C. No. 5321,
September 27, 2006 .)
 NO JURISDICTION OVER:
(1) complaints for disbarment, suspension and
discipline filed against incumbent Justices of the
Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax
Appeals and judges of lower courts; and
(2) complaints against lawyers in the government
service
 MANUEL B. TROVELA,  vs. MICHAEL H. ROBLES, Assistant City Prosecutor;
EMMANUEL L. OBUNGEN, Prosecutor II; JACINTO G. ANG, City Prosecutor;
CLARO A. ARELLANO, Prosecutor General; and LEILA M. DE LIMA, Former
Secretary, Department of Justice (A.C. No. 11550 , June 4, 2018)

The 1987 Constitution clothes the Office of the Ombudsman with the
administrative disciplinary authority to investigate and prosecute any act or
omission of any government official when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The Office of the Ombudsman is the
government agency responsible for enforcing administrative, civil, and criminal
liability of government officials "in every case where the evidence warrants in
order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people." In Samson
v. Restrivera, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance
committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure.
Consequently, acts or omissions of public officials relating to the performance of
their functions as government officials are within the administrative disciplinary
jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Procedure in the IBP-
Commission on Bar Discipline

A. Complaint
- Must be verified
- Six ( 6) copies shall be filed with the
Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any
of its chapter who shall forthwith transmit the
same to the IBP Board of Governors for
assignment to an investigator
- Referred to an evaluator
 * If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the
Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon
the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within
fifteen (15) days from the date of service.

* If the complaint does not merit action, or if the

answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the
complaint is not meritorious, the Investigator will recommend
to the Board of Governors the dismissal of the complaint.
 Is certification against forum-shopping
necessary?
 
SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA SAMMA-LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG
KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA (SAMMA-LIKHA) vs. SAMMA CORPORATION (G.R. No.
167141, March 13, 2009)
 
“It is in this light that we take a further look at the necessity of
attaching a certification against forum shopping to a disbarment
complaint. It would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e.,
the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions,
rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said
proceedings are either "taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or
by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified
complaint of any person." Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment
case fails to attach a certification against forum shopping, the
pendency of another disciplinary action against the same respondent
may still be ascertained with ease.”
B. Answer

(1) Must allege defenses

(2) Attach copies of documentary evidence
(3) Copy must be furnished to Complainant

REPLY IS NOT MANDATORY.

C. Mandatory Conference
Investigating Commissioner issues a Notice of Mandatory
Conference
Private and Confidential
Similar to a pre-trial
Parties are directed to submit their respective mandatory
conference briefs
Non-appearance by any of the parties shall be deemed a
waiver of their right to participate in further proceedings
Complainant may be assisted by a lawyer
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of
the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal
of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the
same.
D. Submission of Position Paper

Must be verified
Must attach affidavits of witnesses
Must attach documentary evidence
Must be simultaneously filed by parties
E. Report and Recommendation

By the Investigating Commissioner

Within thirty (30) days from termination of investigation
Based on Investigating Commissioner’s appreciation of
facts and application of laws
No need to wait for TSN of proceedings
Motion for Reconsideration is a prohibited pleading
- Quantum of proof
 
✔ Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Radial
Golden Marine Services vs. Atty. Cabugoy, AC No. 8869, June 25, 2019.)
 
✔ Clear and convincing evidence is standard of proof derived from
American common law. It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal
cases) but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases). The degree
of believability is higher than that of an ordinary civil case. 
 
✘ Proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases is evidence that
overcomes the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
 
✔ Preponderance of evidence--the standard of proof in civil cases in which
the party bearing the burden of proof must present evidence which is more
credible and convincing than that presented by the other party or which shows
that the fact to be proven is more probable than not. (Atty. Maria Rowena
Guanzon vs. Atty. Joel Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, August 6, 2018.)
Burden of Proof
As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of
the charges against him until the contrary is proved. The burden of proof in
disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the complainant.
Considering the serious consequence of disbarment or suspension of a member of
the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is
necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty. Preponderance of
evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to
or has greater weight than that of the other.

Thus, not only does the burden of proof that the respondent committed the
act complained of rests on complainant, but the burden is not satisfied when
complainant relies on mere assumptions and suspicions as evidence. (Atty. Maria
Rowena Guanzon vs. Atty. Joel Dojillo, A.C. No. 9850, August 6, 2018.)
Motion for Reconsideration

A party can no longer file a motion for

reconsideration of any order or resolution of the
Investigating Commissioner, such motion being a
prohibited pleading. (Bar Matter No. 1755 dated
March 17, 2008.)
F. Review and Resolution by BOG

By the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall

recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of
the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action
against the respondent.
Resolution within a period not exceeding thirty (30)
days from the next meeting of the Board following
the submission of the Investigator's report.
Motion for Reconsideration is allowed.
 •Exoneration or less than suspension

•MR w/in 15 days with BOG

•If MR is denied, Rule 45 with the SC (15 days)

* If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the decision shall become

final and executory and a copy of said decision shall be furnished the
Supreme Court.
The rule does not recognize the filing of a 2nd Motion for
Reconsideration.

In Bar Matter No. 1755, the Court emphasized the application of Section 12,
Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, thus:
ChanRoblesVirt

ualawlibrary

In case a decision is rendered by the [Board of Governors] that exonerates

the respondent or imposes a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the
aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day period
from notice. If the motion is denied, said party can file a petition for review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the
decision shall become final and executory and a copy of said decision shall be
furnished this Court.
 ATTY. DELIO M. ASERON v. ATTY. JOSE A. DIÑO, JR.,
A.C. No. 10782, September 14, 2016

“Clearly, the rule does not recognize the filing of a second motion
for reconsideration. In fact, the rule expressly provides that the proper
remedy of the losing party is to file a Petition for Review under Rule 45
with this Court.

In accordance, however, with the liberal spirit pervading the

Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, the Court treats
the second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent as a
petition for review under Rule 45. This is consistent with the sui
generis nature of disbarment proceedings which focuses on the
qualification and fitness of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar
and not the procedural technicalities in filing the case.”
G. Supreme Court

- (1) Can adopt or reverse the resolution of the BOG;

- (2) Can adopt finding but vary the penalty; or

- (3) Can dismiss the disbarment complaint.

A.C. No. 8907, June 03, 2019
Spouses Eduardo and Myrna Vargas, et al. v. ATTY. ARIEL T. ORIÑO

Complainants alleged that the following constitute serious neglect of

duty: (1) respondent lawyer's failure to attend the March 12, 2010 hearing on
the Commissioner's Report which resulted to the failure to cause the marking
and submission of evidence for complainants in said ejectment case, (2)
respondent lawyer's failure to submit the position paper for complainants in said
ejectment case which resulted to complainants' defeat in the MCTC, and (3)
on appeal to the RTC, respondent lawyer's failure to file memorandum for
complainants which resulted to the dismissal of said appeal. In the course of
hiring respondent lawyer, complainants claimed that they paid respondent
lawyer the amount of P20,000.00 as acceptance fee, P1,500.00 as appearance
fee, and live chickens and root crops. Further, when complainants asked
respondent lawyer why he did not submit the aforesaid position paper,
respondent lawyer simply replied, "Hindi ko na sinagot dahil talo na kayo sa
forcible entry. Sa lupa na lang kayo maghabol."
CBD’s Report and Recommendation:

X x x While it could be true that Respondent received minimal sums of

money or goods in kind from the Complainants, this could not have meant
that Respondent was not bound to exert the same competence, diligence,
care, and devotion required of a lawyer under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

X x x Respondent should have attended the hearing of 12 March 2010;

and should have filed the Position Paper and Memorandum (of Appeal) for
the Complainants. Because of Respondent’s failure to file a Position Paper,
the MTC rendered its Decision based only on the adversary’s Position Paper.
Similarly, because of the failure of Respondent to file a Memorandum of
Appeal within the given fifteen-day period, the RTC dismissed the appeal of
Complainants herein. Obviously, the actuations of Respondent in not
attending the hearing despite notice and his failure to file the required
Position Paper and Memorandum exhibited negligence by the Respondent.
Thus, Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR.
 “WHEREFORE, the undersigned
Commissioner recommends the SUSPENSION of
ATTY. ARIIEL T. ORINO from the practice of law
for a period of six (6) months for violating his
Lawyer’s Oath and Rules 18.03 and Rule 18.04,
Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with a WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar act or acts
shall be dealt with more severely.”
Ruling of the Supreme Court:

In In Re: Vicente Y. Bayani, the Court reminded lawyers that their actions
or omissions are binding on their clients and that they are expected to be
acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and that anyone who
deals with them has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional
learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to their client's cause.

Respondent lawyer's acts, which the IBP-BOG correctly found as violative of

Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, warrant the imposition of disciplinary action.
However, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court increases the
recommended penalty to suspension from practice of law for one (1) year.

WHEREFORE, respondent Arty. Ariel T. Oriño is found GUILTY of violating Rule

18.03, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective
upon his receipt of this Resolution with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more severely.
Effects of Non-Appearance before the IBP-CBD

(1) The Supreme Court can impose a fine and/or warning

on respondent-lawyer;

(2) The Supreme Court can impose a suspension on

respondent-lawyer; or

(3) The Supreme Court can impose disbarment on

respondent-lawyer.
(1) CARLINA P. ROBIÑOL vs. ATTY. EDILBERTO P. BASSIG
(A.C. No. 11836, Nov. 21, 2017)

His attitude of refusing to obey the orders of the IBP indicates his lack of
respect for the IBP's rules and regulations but also towards the IBP as an institution.
Remarkably, the IBP is empowered by this Court to conduct proceedings
regarding the discipline of lawyers.  Hence, it is but proper for Atty. Bassig to be
mindful of his duty as a member of the bar to maintain his respect towards a duly
constituted authority.

Verily, Atty. Bassig's conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are

particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to
stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the
court. In disregarding the orders of the IBP, he exhibited a conduct which runs
contrary to his sworn duty as an officer of the court.
 Xxx

As a final note, We commiserate with Robiñol, a nonagenarian, on her

unfortunate circumstances as she should no longer be dealing with this kind
of anxiety. Nevertheless, We sanction Atty. Bassig to pay a fine in the
amount of ₱l0,000.00 for his arrant neglect to maintain acceptable
deportment as member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Atty. Edilberto P. Bassig is

hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(₱l0,000.00) with the STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
(2) RADIAL GOLDEN MARINE SERVICES CORP. v. ATTY. CABUGOY
(AC No. 8869, June 25, 2019)

The Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for two (2) years for his failure to file
an answer, to appear at the mandatory conference and to file position paper
before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The High Court explained:

“Atty. Cabugoy’s disregard of the Court’s Resolutions

directing him to file his Comment and show cause for his
failure to do so, as well as the IBP’s directives to file his
position paper and to attend the mandatory conference,
despite due notice, without justification or valid reason,
indicates a lack of respect for the Court and the IBP’s rules
and procedures. As an officer of the Court, Atty. Cabugoy
is expected to know that said Resolutions of the Court, and
the IBP, as the investigating arm of the Court in
administrative cases against lawyers, is not a mere request
but an order which should be complied with promptly and
completely.
(3) JUTTA KRURSEL v. ATTY. LORENZA ABION
A.C. No. 5951, July 12, 2016

The Supreme Court DISBARRED the lawyer as the Complainant was able to
prove by substantial evidence the charges against Respondent, who never
participated in the proceedings. The High Court explained:

“Here, respondent's apparent disregard of the judicial

process cannot be tolerated. Under the circumstances,
respondent is deemed to have waived her right to present
her evidence for she cannot use her disappearance as a
shield against any liability she may have incurred.

Respondent's evasive attitude is tantamount to "a willful

disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court," which
alone is a ground for disbarment or suspension.”
IBP-CBD
* the investigating arm of the Supreme Court in
administrative cases against lawyers

* therefore, all its issuances are not mere requests but are
orders which should be complied with promptly and
completely by the Respondent
 Thank you.

Leilani R. Vizconde-Escueta
Investigator-CBD