Disciplinary proceedings

against lawyers

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law
Foundation
2017-2018

1
Contempt v. Disciplinary Proceeding
 While the two proceedings can proceed
simultaneously with each other, a contempt
proceeding cannot substitute for a disciplinary
proceeding for erring lawyers, and vice versa.

 There can be no substitution between the two

proceedings, as contempt proceedings against
lawyers, as officers of the Court, are different
in nature and purpose from the discipline of
lawyers as legal professionals.

2
 ……
 The two proceedings spring from two different
powers of the Court. The Court, in exercising its
power of contempt, exercises an implied and
inherent power granted to courts in general.

 Its existence is essential to the preservation of

order in judicial proceedings; to the enforcement
of judgments, orders and mandates of courts; and,
consequently, in the administration of justice;
thus, it may be instituted against any person
guilty of acts that constitute contempt of court.

3
 ……
 Further, jurisprudence describes a contempt
proceeding as penal and summary in nature; hence,
legal principles applicable to criminal
proceedings also apply to contempt proceedings.

 A judgment dismissing the charge of contempt, for

instance, may no longer be appealed in the same
manner that the prohibition against double
jeopardy bars the appeal of an accused’s
acquittal.

4
 ……
 In contrast, a disciplinary proceeding against an
erring lawyer is sui generis in nature; it is neither
purely civil nor purely criminal.

 Unlike a criminal prosecution, a disciplinary

proceeding is not intended to inflict punishment, but
to determine whether a lawyer is still fit to be
allowed the privilege of practicing law.

 It involves an investigation by the Court of the

conduct of its officers, and has, for its primary
objective, public interest.

5
 …..
 Thus, unlike a contempt proceeding, the acquittal of
the lawyer from a disciplinary proceeding cannot bar
an interested party from seeking reconsideration of
the ruling.
 Neither does the imposition of a penalty for contempt
operate as res judicata to a subsequent charge for
unprofessional conduct.
 Contempt proceedings and disciplinary actions are also
governed by different procedures. Contempt of court is
governed by the procedures under Rule 71 of the Rules
of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in the practice
of law are governed by Rules 138 and 139 thereof.
- Re: Verified complaint of Thomas S. Merdegia;
IPI No. 12-205-CA-J & A.C. No.: 10300, December 10, 2013

6
 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

7
Continuous display and use of the title
“Attorney-at-law”after 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

8
 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

9
 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;

10
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

respondent’s 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

11
 Lifting of a lawyer’s suspension
is not automatic
 The lifting of a lawyer’s suspension is not automatic upon
the end of the period stated in the Court’s 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


12
 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]

13
 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]

14
 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.

15
 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. any deceit,
2. malpractice,
3. other gross misconduct in such office,
4. grossly immoral conduct,
5. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
6. 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.

16
 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

17
 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]

18
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]

19
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 court’s 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

20
 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:
x x x x
(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

21
 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]

22
 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 respondent’s 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]

23
 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

24
 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]

25
 Violation of BP 22 not subject to
sanction yet
 Consequently, he filed this complaint for disbarment,
praying also that an administrative sanction be meted
against respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check.
 Prefatorily, we stress that we shall not delve into the
merits of the various criminal and civil cases pending
between the parties. It is for the trial courts handling
these cases to ascertain the truth or falsity of the
allegations made therein. For this reason, it is not for us
to sanction respondent for his issuance of a bouncing check.
His liability has yet to be determined by the trial court
where his case is pending. – Genato v. Atty. Silapan, A.C.
No. 4078. July 14, 2003

26
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

27
 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

28
 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

29
 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

30
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)

31
 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)

32
 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)

33
 Indefinite suspension

 The indefiniteness of respondent’s 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 respondent’s 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

34
 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 lawyer’s duty to the court or
the client. - Cynthia Advincula v. Atty. Ernesto M.
Macabata, A.C. No. 7204 [2007]

35
 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, respondent’s 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]

36
 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

37
 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]

38
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]

39
 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

40
 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
[Court’s] 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

41
 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

42
 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
one’s 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 Vera’s
alleged immorality. - In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De
Vera, A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

43
 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 Vera’s moral fitness to run
for governor. – In re: Petition to Disqualify Atty. De Vera,
A.C. No. 6052. December 11, 2003

44
 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 family’s 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

45
 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

46
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 Jehovah’s
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

47
Cont…

 Thus, we find that in this particular case and under these

distinct circumstances, respondent’s 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

48
 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

49
 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

50
 “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

51
 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.

52
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

53
 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

54
 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

55
 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

56
 SC acting as an administrative
tribunal, cannot review the trial
court’s decision
 At the outset, it should be emphasized that this Court,
acting as an administrative tribunal, cannot review the
trial court’s decision. – Belga v. Buban, A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1512. May 9, 2000

57
 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

58
 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

59
 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

60
 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.

61
Affidavit stands in lieu complainant’s
testimony
 As for complainant’s failure to testify on her own behalf,
this is of no moment. Complainant’s 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 complainant’s evidence. –
Liwanag v. Judge Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168. April 21,
1999

62
 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 lawyer’s
oath and code of conduct, then it falls within the Court’s
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 Court’s disciplinary authority. – Felipe, et. al. v.
Atty. Macapagal, A.C. No. 4549, December 02, 2013

63
 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

64
Cont…

 If the matter involves violations of the lawyer’s oath and code

of conduct, then it falls within the Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s disciplinary
authority. Annacta v. Atty. Resurreccion, A.C. No. 9074 August
14, 2012

65
 Return of money or fees
 It is well to note that "[w]hile the Court has previously held that
disciplinary proceedings should only revolve around the determination of
the respondent-lawyer's administrative and not his: civil liability, it must be
clarified that this rule remains applicable only to claimed liabilities which
are purely civil in nature - for instance, when the claim involves moneys
received by the lawyer from his client in a transaction separate and distinct
and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement."
 Since respondent received the aforesaid amount as part of her legal fees,
the Court, thus, finds the return thereof to be in order, with legal interest as
recommended by the IBP Investigating Commissioner. – Sps. Lopez v.
Atty. Limos, A.C. No. 7618, February 02, 2016

66
 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, respondent’s acquittal does not
necessarily exculpate him administratively.
 In the same vein, the trial court’s 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

67
 “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

68
 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

69
 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

70
 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

71
 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

72
 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

73
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.

74
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

75
 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.

76
Thank you for your
attention!!

77