LAWYERS CLAIMING INFLUENCE OR FAMILIARITY TO THE

COURT: HOW THE SUPREME COURT DISBAR AND

DISCIPLINE THEM

The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the

administration of justice. Their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The
conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest
which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his
client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.1
It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened
with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law during
good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained
and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has
afforded him.2 Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an
attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend
or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to
exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney.
The Constitution provides the Supreme Court with the power to
promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar and legal assistance to the underprivileged. 3 As part of its
power to regulate the practice of law, the Supreme Court can discipline,
suspend or disbar any unfit and unworthy member of the Bar, reinstate any
disbarred or suspended lawyer, punish for contempt any person for

1. Jimenez, et al. v. Atty. Verano, Jr., 739 Phil. 49, 57 (2014).

2. Velasco v. Atty. Doroin, et al., 582 Phil. 1, 9 (2008).
3. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VIII, Section 5 (5) - Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
unauthorized practice of law and, in general, exercise overall supervision of
the legal profession.
The Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court specifies the procedure on
disbarment and discipline of attorneys. All the investigations are made by
the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline which in turn, recommends to the
Supreme Court en banc for the disposition of the case in a decision. 4 Thus,
the report and recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
shall comprehensively examine all the acts of professional misconduct and
how thereby failed to live up to the exacting ethical standards imposed on
members of the bar for the proper penalty.
The acts of a lawyer mentioning his alleged connections with
Supreme Court Justices, Trial Court Judges, his prominence, and influence
in the legal community constitute a violation of his duty as an attorney and
his oath as a lawyer to never mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law.5
Such misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the
lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar justifies disciplinary
action. Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times,
whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a
violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the
imposition of the appropriate penalty6, including suspension and
disbarment.7

4. Rules of Court, Rule 139-B, Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of
attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
upon the verified complaint of any person.
5. A.C. No. 10498. September 04, 2018
6. Caballero v. Atty. Sampana, A.C. No. 10699, 06 October 2020.
7. Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27. Disbarment and 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 any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly
or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
Cases where Disbarment was the Proper Penalty
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as
such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only
for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting
the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court
and member of the bar.8
Disbarment should be imposed in clear cases of misconduct that
seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the
court and as member of the bar, or the misconduct borders on the criminal,
or committed under scandalous circumstance.9
As previously discussed, the CPRA provision is clear that a lawyer
shall not make claims of power, influence, or relationship with any officer
of a court, tribunal, or other government agency.10 Hereinto what
circumstance the court will wield its power to disbar a lawyer violating the
said provision and be considered unfit to engage in the practice of law.
In the case of Ko v. Atty. Mudarante , A.C. No 11118, 14 July 2020, by
giving the impression that justice is served depending on one's connections,
and insinuating that the administration of justice is susceptible to
corruption and misconduct, Atty. Mercy has placed the judiciary in a bad
light thereby eroding the public's trust and confidence in the judicial system
when she tarnished the reputation of the judiciary by using her political
connections not only to gain the trust of Nenita but also to discourage her
from filing any complaint against her and Atty. Ladimir, for

8. Munar, et al. v. Atty. Bautista, et al.:73 805 Phil. 384, 398-399 (2017).
9. Ko v. Atty. Maduramente, A.C. No 11118, 14 July 2020.
10. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon II – Propriety, Section 15 -. Improper claim of
influence or familiarity. — A lawyer shall observe propriety in all dealings with officers and personnel of any court,
tribunal, or other government agency, whether personal or professional. Familiarity with such officers and
personnel that will give rise to an appearance of impropriety, influence, or favor shall be avoided. (13.01a) 23 A
lawyer shall not make claims of power, influence, or relationship with any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
misappropriating the funds of Nenita for the purchase of Manila Prince
Hotel, before the courts thereby

8. Munar, et al. v. Atty. Bautista, et al.:73 805 Phil. 384, 398-399 (2017).
9. Ko v. Atty. Maduramente, A.C. No 11118, 14 July 2020.
10. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, Canon II – Propriety, Section 15 -. Improper claim of
influence or familiarity. — A lawyer shall observe propriety in all dealings with officers and personnel of any court,
tribunal, or other government agency, whether personal or professional. Familiarity with such officers and
personnel that will give rise to an appearance of impropriety, influence, or favor shall be avoided. (13.01a) 23 A
lawyer shall not make claims of power, influence, or relationship with any officer of a court, tribunal, or other
government agency.
impressing upon Nenita that this Court can be swayed by political
connections. 11
As an officer of the court, Atty. Mercy failed to uphold a high regard
to the profession by staying true to her oath and keeping her actions beyond
reproach. She also did not observe her bounden duty as a lawyer to keep the
reputation of the courts untarnished.12 As expounded in Francia v. Abdon, 13
citing Berbano v. Barcelona:14
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself,
an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice.' [ x x x].
His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to
which he owes fidelity, 'not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice." [x x x] Faith in the courts a lawyer
should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is
disastrous to the continuity of the government and to the
attainment of the liberties of the people." [x x x]. Thus has it
been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his
sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy
unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts
so essential to the proper administration of justice."
In the foregoing case, the respondent lawyers demonstrated that
they do not possess not even a scintilla of high moral fiber thereby making
them unworthy of public confidence, and of being members of the legal
profession. Their violations clearly caused damage and prejudice to their
client, and had put the administration of justice in a bad light. Thus, the
Court finds it

11. Id.
12. Francia v. Atty. Abdon, 739 Phil. 299, 313 (2014).
13. Id.
14. Supra note 59, at 784.
appropriate to impose on both respondent lawyers the most severe penalty
of disbarment and their names stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. 15
In addition, as enunciated in the case of Roque vs. Atty. Jose A. Diño,
Jr, A.C. No. 7389, July 02, 2019, the respondent lawyer was disbarred from
the practice of law effective immediately by representing to his clients that
he can secure the issuance of a TRO by bribing the judge ₱150,000.00. The
court explained that as an officer of the Court, he has a paramount duty to
protect the court's integrity and assist it in the administration of justice
according to law. He should not espouse a belief that the judicial system
can be bought, much less contribute to the perpetuation of such belief.
Unfortunately, instead of relying on the merits of his clients' cause, he
represented to his clients that the judicial system can be bribed. This
inexcusable, shameful and unlawful act of Atty. Diño, by itself, constitutes
gross misconduct. In fact, the court find that it is conduct so condemnable
that it merits the harshest of penalties.16
Furthermore, asking an amount of money for a favorable decision in a
pending case, claiming influence to the judicial officers and threatening
clients that they would not like the succeeding events if they· fail to pay the
amount advanced for such illegal purposes is considered a gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, and
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.17
In a per curiam decision, the Court En Banc also ordered the name of
respondent Atty. Carlo Marco Bautista stricken off the Roll of Attorneys
effective immediately.18
The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the disbarment of a lawyer for

15. Ong v. Atty. Delos Santos, 728 Phil. 332, 337 (2014).
16. Id.
17. Rodil v. Atty. Andrew C. Corro, A.C. No. 10461, 30 July 2019
18. SC Disbars Lawyer Who Claimed “Connections” with Prosecutor’s Office, Supreme Court Public Information
Office, http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/ 24 February 2023
multiple violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR),
including receiving more than P13 million from his client purportedly to
secure a “favorable resolution on a criminal case.” The Court said that
respondent Bautista’s blatant violation of the CPR and his sacrosanct duties
as a lawyer warrant the imposition of the extreme penalty of disbarment.
The Court reiterated that the lawyer’s act of influence-peddling for
implying that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the legal system
and puts the administration of the justice in a bad light. 19
Notably, the enunciation of disbarment of lawyers claiming influence
and familiarity to the courts is not just solely based on the violation of such
provision but anchored to criminal offenses and considered further the
gravity of related acts which tantamount to gross misconduct. 20 Generally,
such conduct is motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose21 established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. 22
Therefore, to rightfully impose the ultimate penalty of disbarment the
totality of the violations as well as the damage and prejudice that a certain
lawyer has brought upon the good name and reputation of the Supreme
Court and the judiciary as an institution must be considered. 23

Cases where Suspension from the practice of law was the Proper Penalty
In Plumptre v. Atty. Rivera,24 the lawyer successfully solicited money
from his client to allegedly bribe a judge to rule in their favor. The Court
imposed a suspension from the practice of law for three (3) years against

19. Id.
20. Flores v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015. 768 SCRA 161, 168, citing Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No.
7430, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 1, 9.
21.Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr. A.C. No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 199,204
22. Ceniza v. Atty. Rubia, 617 Phil. 202, 208-209 (2009).
23. Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017.
24. 792 Phil. 626 (2016).
the lawyer. It was emphasized that a lawyer's act of soliciting money to
bribe a

19. Id.
20. Flores v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015. 768 SCRA 161, 168, citing Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr., A.C. No.
7430, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 1, 9.
21.Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr. A.C. No. 4914, March 3, 2004, 424 SCRA 199,204
22. Ceniza v. Atty. Rubia, 617 Phil. 202, 208-209 (2009).
23. Punla v. Maravilla-Ona, A.C. No. 11149, August 15, 2017.
24. 792 Phil. 626 (2016).
judge served to malign the judge and the judiciary by giving the impression
that court cases are won by the party with the deepest pockets and not on
the merits.
In Rau Sheng Mao v. Atty. Velasco, 25 the lawyer therein, among
others, sent a letter to the complainant bragging about his influence over
judges. The Court suspended him for two (2) years from the practice of law.
It was highlighted therein that a lawyer is duty bound to avoid
improprieties which give the appearance of influencing the court.
In Fajardo v. Atty. Alvarez, 26t the lawyer gave an impression that he is
able to influence the Office of the Ombudsman to rule in favor of his client
provided that complainant furnish the necessary bribe money for the said
office. The Court suspended him for one (1) year from the practice of law
for influence peddling. It was stated therein that lawyers who offer no skill
other than their acquaintances or relationships with regulators,
investigators, judges, or Justices pervert the system, weaken the rule of law,
and debase themselves even as they claim to be members of a noble
profession.
In Dongga-as v. Cruz-Angeles,27 the court suspended respondents-
lawyers from the practice of law for three years because they represented to
their client that they could find a "friendly" court, judge, and public
prosecutor to ensure a favorable ruling in the client's annulment case. Their
representation undermined and/or denigrated the integrity of the national
prosecution service and the courts, in violation of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Just like in the disbarment cases, the Court rules that, considering the
gravity and seriousness of the offenses committed by respondent-lawyer,
imposable penalty against respondent for influence peddling, attempted

25. 459 Phil. 440 (2003).

26. 785 Phil. 303 (2016).
27. A.C. No. 11113, August 9. 2016, 799 SCRA 624.
bribery, and disrespecting court processes is suspension from the practice
of law. 28

Conclusion
A lawyer is duty-bound to actively avoid any act that tends to
influence, or may be seen to influence, the outcome of an ongoing case, lest
the people's faith in the judicial process is diluted.29
Taking into consideration the a forecited rulings, A lawyer may be
penalized, even disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney, for
violation of the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the CPR. The practice of law is a profession, a
form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted to those who are
qualified and who possess good moral character. The appropriate penalty
for an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion
based on the surrounding facts.30
There is no specific rule as to what extent of violation under the
provision of lawyers claiming familiarity or influence in court, whether a
lawyer should be disbarred or only suspended. The hard and fast rule in
relation to this, in general, is the consideration of gravity and seriousness of
acts on the account of violating such ethical standard.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is
made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and
confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but
also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same. 31
As an officer of the court he is subject to a rigid discipline that
demands that in his every exertion the only criterion be that truth and

32. Apostacy in the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789-790)

justice triumph. This discipline is what has given the law profession its
nobility, its prestige,

32. Apostacy in the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789-790)

its exalted place. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose
conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest of truth and justice, for
which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. 31

32. Apostacy in the Legal Profession, 64 SCRA 784, 789-790)