A SURVEY OF DISBARMENT AND REINSTATEMENT CASES IN PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE

Kremil S. David and Michelle Borromeo

Why do we call it Bar anyway?

Why do we call it Bar anyway?

According to the website Florida Bar, the

history of the term "bar" as representing a legal organization dates from the early 1300s. The word originated when King Edward II established a system of courts throughout his kingdom to settle disputes among the people. Judges moved from village to village to hear and settle disagreements in the surrounding communities.

Why do we call it Bar anyway?

The people of this early era derived most of their entertainment and education in public gathering places. Hearing the plights and disputes of fellow villagers was a great diversion for them. As the courts grew in number, more people began attending these sessions as a social gathering. Consequently, the court sessions had to be held in fields or commons to accommodate the crowds.

Why do we call it Bar anyway?

It soon became necessary to set up boundaries to separate the spectators from the proceedings. This was accomplished by surrounding the court with a square of logs. Only those persons who were part of the court or party to the argument were allowed within the square of logs or "bars." Thus, the terminology, "admission to the bar," became synonymous with practicing law. The term "bar" since has come to mean an organized group practicing law in a given locality.

Admission to the Bar

In the Philippines, admission to the legal profession is a function solely vested in the Supreme Court. Paragraph 5, Section 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall have the power to 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...

Admission to the Bar

Every applicant for admission as a

member of the bar

must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court

satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines

Disbarment its nature

Disbarment is the act of the court to in

withdrawing from an attorney the privilege to practice law. The name of the lawyer is stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys. And he does not have the right to put in his name even the prefix Atty.. Neither can he sign pleadings even if he does not personally appear in court. Disbarment terminates the individuals status as a lawyer. Ernesto L. Pineda, Legal Ethics,
Central Bookstore: 2009, page 391.

Disbarment distinguished from contempt

The power to punish for contempt and the power to disbar are separate and distinct, and that the exercise of one does not exclude the exercise of the other. A contempt proceeding for misbehaviour in court is designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the other hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court's officer to continue in that office, to preserve and protect the court and the public from the official ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy to hold such office. The principal purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court and should thus be used sparingly on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The principal purpose of the exercise of disciplinary authority by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for orders of such court by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.

Disbarment sui generis

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely

criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio.

Disbarment Judicial in nature

Although, considered as a sui generis, the power to discipline lawyers for that matter,

the power to disbar is judicial in nature and can be exercised only by the court. The authority of the Supreme Court to discipline lawyers is anchored on the constitutional provision which mandates the highest tribunal to regulate the practice of law and the admission of individuals to engage in the legal profession.

Burden of Proof Rests upon Lawyer

The burden of proof still rests upon the

lawyer to prove his innocence. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.

Quantum of Evidence required

Administrative cases against lawyers are distinct from and they may proceed

independently of civil and criminal cases. The burdens 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.

Clearly Preponderant Evidence

Clearly preponderant evidence is that degree of evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it means the probability of truth.

Purpose of Disbarment
Disbarment has been designed
to compel the attorney to deal fairly and

honestly with his clients, and to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney.

Procedure for disbarment

The only officers authorized to investigate

cases of disbarment are the following

The Supreme Court; The Integrated Bar of the Philippines through

its Commission on Bar Discipline or authorized investigators; and Office of the Solicitor General.

Procedure for Disbarment

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.

Procedure for Disbarment

The 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, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service. In proceedings initiated motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.

Procedure for Disbarmment

Based upon the evidence adduced at the

investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.

Procedure for Disbarment

Six copies of the verified complaint 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.

Procedure for disbarment

If the complaint is filed in the IBP, the Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP

members an Investigator or, when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of three (3) investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators shall take an oath of office in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

Procedure for Disbarment

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 same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu propio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complainant

Procedure for Disbarment

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, unless the Supreme Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.

Procedure for Disbarment

The answer shall be verified. The original

and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel. The IBP Board of Governors shall appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the complainant of the respondent during the investigation in case of need for such assistance.

Procedure for Disbarment

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.

Procedure for Disbarment

The Investigator shall terminate the

investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.

Procedure for Disbarment

The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before

the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.

Procedure for Disbarment

Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the

Investigator shall submit a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the stenographic notes and the transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the investigation. The submission of the report need not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes any relevant and pertinent testimonies.

Procedure for Disbarment

Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors

upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator's Report.

Procedure for Disbarment

If the Board, by the vote of a majority of

its total membership, determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.

Grounds for Disbarment

Section 27 of Rule 128 provides for the specific grounds for

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

disbarment of a lawyer. Accordingly, a member of the bar may be removed 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; by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice; for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; or for corruptly or wilful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do.

Grounds for Disbarment

These grounds are not exclusive. A lawyer may be disbarred even if the grounds are not any of those provided in Section 27. Thus the acquisition of an interest in the subject matter of the litigation, either through purchase or assignment, constitutes not only breach of professional ethics, but is a patent violation of Article 1491 of the Civil Code. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another: (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

In re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero, A.C. No. 126, October 24, 1952
Tranquilino Rovero was convicted of smuggling. The

Solicitor General filed the complaint for disbarment, based on such conviction. The respondent admits the existence of the decision of the Collector of Customs, and his conviction by the Court of Appeals, but sets up the defense that they are not sufficient to disqualify him from the practice of law, especially because the acts of which he was found guilty, while at most merely discreditable, had been committed by him as an individual and not in pursuance or in the exercise of his legal profession. Still, the Court disbarred him, stating that Respondent's conviction of smuggling by final decision of the Court of Appeals certainly involves an act done contrary at least to honesty or good morals.

Office of The Court Administrator, vs. Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, March 31, 2006
Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in

a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies. Thus, Judge Floros reference to psychic phenomena in the decision he rendered in the case of People v. Francisco, Jr. sticks out like a sore thumb. In said decision, Judge Floro discredited the testimony of the prosecutions principal witness by concluding that the testimony was a "fairytale" or a "fantastic story." He then went to state that "psychic phenomena" was destined to cooperate with the stenographer who transcribed the testimony of the witness.

In Re Del Rosario, December 7, 1928, 52 Phil 399 (1928)

The acquittal of Felipe del Rosario upon the criminal charge is not a bar to these proceedings. The court is now acting in an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume in trying criminal cases. It is asking a great deal of the members of the court to have them believe that Felipe del Rosario was totally unaware of the illegal machinations culminating in the falsification of public documents, of which he was the sole beneficiary. Indeed, the conviction of Juan Villaflor in itself demonstrates that Felipe del Rosario has no legal right to his attorney's certificate. While to admit Felipe del Rosario again to the bar examination would be tantamount to a declaration of professional purity which we are totally unable to pronounce. The practice of the law is not an absolute right to be granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law. It would be a disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court, to clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out as a duly authorized member of the bar.

B.M. No. 1222, In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, dated February 4, 2004
Another scandal in the bar examination which led to the disbarment of Atty. Danilo

de Guzman has to do with the leakage in the 2003 Bar examination. in B.M. No. 1222, In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, dated February 4, 2004, the Supreme Court ordered the nullification of the results in the Mercantile Law after a leakage of the questions in the said subject happened. Upon investigation by a committee appointed by the Court, it was found that there was indeed leakage of test questions in Mercantile Law.

B.M. No. 1222, In Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, dated February 4, 2004
Upon learning from Justice Vitug of the leakage of the

bar questions prepared by him in mercantile law, Atty. Balgos immediately called together and questioned his office staff. He interrogated all of them except Atty. Danilo De Guzman who was absent then. All of them professed to know nothing about the bar leakage. Attorney Balgos questioned Attorney Danilo De Guzman, also a member of the Beta Sigma Lambda fraternity, FEU chapter. De Guzman admitted to him that he downloaded the test questions from Attorney Balgos computer and faxed a copy to a fraternity brother. Attorney Balgos was convinced that De Guzman was the source of the leakage of his test questions in mercantile law.

Deceit as Ground for Disbarment

Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is deceit

when the act is performed with deliberate intent. This concept of deceit under Criminal Law is applicable in disbarment proceedings. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that a lawyer shall not engage in wilful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Bienvenido Ganzaludo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150910, February 6, 2006.

Deceit as Ground for Disbarment

The respondent avoided attending the hearings

conducted by the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan. Even in this Court, his whereabouts are totally unknown. His knowledge that a disbarment proceeding had been file pending against him imposes upon him the duty to make himself or his presence available to this Court for a trial. That he could not be located at his known address without making his whereabouts known implies that he had chosen to waive every right and opportunity to put up his defense. The respondent Isaias A. Celestino is barred from the practice of the legal profession.

Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Achilles Bartolome, and St. Lukes Medical Center,, vs. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June 17, 1993.

A previously disbarred lawyer once again faced another disbarment case and was

charged with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chart which was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against the doctors of St. Luke's Medical Hospital. On November 12, 1987, he was first disbarred for his immoral complicity or "unholy alliance" with a judge in Quezon City to rip off banks and Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to be sued in the latter's court.

Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Achilles Bartolome, and St. Lukes Medical Center,, vs. Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia, A.C. No. 3694, June 17, 1993.
An incorrigible practitioner of "dirty tricks," like Grecia would be ill-suited to discharge the role of "an instrument to advance the ends of justice." By descending to the level of a common thief, respondent Grecia has demeaned and disgraced the legal profession. He has demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the honorable fraternity of lawyers. He has forfeited his membership in the Bar. Generally, a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanour or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court, or an unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges and to manage the business of others in the capacity of an attorney, or for conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favourable opinion of the public.

Malpractice as a ground for Disbarment

Malpractice refers to any dereliction of

duty or any act of malfeasance. The term is occasionally applied to lawyers, and then means generally any evil practice in a professional capacity, but rather with reference to the court and its practice and process than to the client.

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No. 5859 November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).
De Vera was a member of the Bar and was the former counsel of Rosario P. Mercado in a civil case filed in 1984 with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City and an administrative case filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission, Davao City Extension Office. Pursuant to a favourable decision, a writ of execution pending appeal was issued in favour of Rosario P. Mercado. Respondent, as her legal counsel, garnished the bank deposits of the defendant, but did not turn over the proceeds to Rosario. Rosario demanded that the respondent turn over the proceeds of the garnishment, but the latter refused claiming that he had paid part of the money to the judge while the balance was his, as attorneys fees. Such refusal prompted Rosario to file an administrative case for disbarment against the respondent. On March 23, 1993, the IBP Board of Governors promulgated a Resolution holding the respondent guilty of infidelity in the custody and handling of clients funds and recommending to the Court his one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No. 5859 November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).

Following the release of the aforesaid IBP Resolution, the respondent filed a series of

lawsuits against the Mercado family. The respondent also instituted cases against the family corporation, the corporations accountant and the judge who ruled against the reopening of the case where respondent tried to collect the balance of his alleged fee from Rosario. Later on, the respondent also filed cases against the chairman and members of the IBP Board of Governors who voted to recommend his suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Atty. Carmen Alcantara vs. Atty. Eduardo de Vera A.C. No. 5859 November 23, 2010 (Formerly CBD Case No. 421).
The Supreme Court ruled out that the respondent

committed professional malpractice and gross misconduct particularly in his acts against his former clients after the issuance of the IBP Resolution suspending him from the practice of law for one year. In summary, the respondent filed against his former client, her family members, the family corporation of his former client, the Chairman and members of the Board of Governors of the IBP who issued the said Resolution, the Regional Trial Court Judge in the case where his former client received a favourable judgment, and the present counsel of his former client, a total of twelve different cases in various fora which included the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Tagum, Davao; the Davao City Prosecutors Office; the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline; the Department of Agrarian Reform; and the Supreme Court.

Grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment

Grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disbarment is

not easy to define. There is no hard and fast rule to determine whether an act is grossly immoral to warrant the disbarment for erring lawyers. The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct that is wilful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or an act so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.

Atty. Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Atty. Leo PalmaAdm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004.

The Supreme Court has somehow come up with a common definition of what constitutes

immoral conduct, i.e., "that conduct which is wilful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." The Court ruled Atty. Palmas acts to be grossly immoral when he abandoned his lawful wife and three children; lured an innocent young woman into marrying him; and misrepresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007.
The case of Atty. Noli Eala, commentator of the

Philippine Basketball Association, discusses gross immorality as basis for disbarment. Eala, admittedly maintained relationship with Mary Anne Moje, who was married to the complainant. Out of that illicit relationship, Moje gave birth to a child which Eala acknowledged. In the disbarment case filed against Eala, he insisted that disbarment does not lie because his relationship with Irene was not, under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, grossly immoral under scandalous circumstances.

Ui vs. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319, June 8, 2000.

Atty. Iris Bonifacio who entered into a

relationship with Carlos Ui, a married man and bore two children with him was not disbarred. Her defense that she honestly believed that the man was single was sided by the Court. This is so, because upon discovery of the true civil status of the man, she parted ways with him.

Ui vs. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319, June 8, 2000.

We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to

refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards." Respondent's act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.

In Re Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C.No. 5118, September 9, 1999

The act of the lawyer in facilitating the travel of a

person to the United States using spurious travel documents was considered a grossly immoral conduct. The respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary to Canon I, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something went wrong.

In Re Sebastian vs. Calis, A.C.No. 5118, September 9, 1999

It is dismaying to note how respondent so

cavalierly jeopardized the life and liberty of complainant when he made her travel with spurious documents. How often have victims of unscrupulous travel agents and illegal recruiters been imprisoned in foreign lands because they were provided fake travel documents? Respondent totally disregarded the personal safety of the complainant when he sent her abroad on false assurances. Not only are respondent's acts illegal, they are also detestable from the moral point of view. His utter lack of moral qualms and scruples is a real threat to the Bar and the administration of justice.

Victoriano Resureccion vs. Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998.
Complainant Victoriano Resureccion, on May 13, 1970, was

involved in a vehicular accident in EDSA resulting in the death of a boy. By reason of the said incident, Resureccion was accused of homicide thru reckless imprudence before the City Fiscal's Office at Quezon City. In the preliminary investigation, the father of the victim Mr. Armando Basto Sr., was represented by Atty. Ramon Umali. The case for homicide thru reckless imprudence was amicably settled on August 8, 1970 and lawyer, Atty. Ciriaco Sayson received from the Resureccion the amount of P2,500.00. Atty. Sayson assured Resureccion that the sum would be delivered to Mr. Armando Basto, Sr. However, he had not delivered the said amount of P2,500.00 and the case was not dismissed for which reason Resureccion was compelled to pay anew the heirs of the victim the amount P2,500.00. Atty. Sayson was charged of and was convicted with estafa.

Victoriano Resureccion vs. Atty. Ciriaco Sayson, A.C. No. 1037, December 14, 1998.
Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser

penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. However, in the present case, the Court notes that even if respondent's culpability for estafa has been indubitably established, there is no indication that he has served sentence, returned to complainant what was due him or showed any remorse for what he did. The 27-year delay in the resolution of this case was, to a large extent, caused by his failure to appear before the Office of the Solicitor General and to inform the IBP of his change of address, a failure that also indicated his lack of regard for the very serious charges brought against him. Respondent Sayson, by his conduct, has shown that he is not worthy to remain a member of the bar.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

It should be noted that the requirement of

good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely:

to protect the public; to protect the public image of lawyers; and

to protect prospective clients.

to protect errant lawyers from themselves.

Moral Turpitude
Anathema to good moral character is

moral turpitude. Traditionally defined, moral turpitude is an act which involves baseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.

Moral Turpitude
In an old case, the crime of abduction with

consent was treated to be a crime involving moral turpitude. However, the Court, during this time, showed compassion to the young lawyer as he was simply suspended from practice for one year to take effect after serving his sentence.

International Rice Research Institute vs. NLRC.R. No. 97239, May 13, 1993.
The Supreme Court laid down a more specific

guide in determining whether a criminal offense involves moral turpitude. In this case, Micosa, an employee of the IRRI was convicted of homicide. Consequently, he was terminated from employment for violation of Institute Personnel Manual, in as much as the provision in the Manual states that an employee maybe dismissed on the ground of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. The Supreme Court held that IRRI simply assumed that conviction of the crime of homicide is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

International Rice Research Institute vs. NLRC.R. No. 97239, May 13, 1993.

This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always, crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it, cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.

VIOLATION OF OATH AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

By way of enumeration, the following duties as embodied in the Oath when so violated are grounds for disbarment or suspension 1. Duty to recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; 2. Duty to support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; 3. Duty to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; 4. Duty to refrain from wittingly or willingly promoting or suing any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; 5. Duty to delay no man for money or malice, 6. Duty to conduct oneself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients.

VIOLATION OF OATH AS GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at common law. It is disreputable to hunt up defects in titles or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward, directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner immediately to inform thereof, to the end that the offender may be disbarred.

Canon 28 of the Professional Ethics

WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR COURT AS A GROUND FOR DISBARMENT

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards

the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities. In such cases, but not otherwise, such charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected.

In the Matter of Atty. Lope Adriano vs. Remigio Estebia, G.R. No. 26868, February 27, 1969.

Adriano has received no less than three resolutions of the Court requiring compliance of its orders. To be recalled is that on September 25, 1967, this Court directed him, in ten days from notice, to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his failure to file appellant's brief despite the lapse of the time therefor. Nothing was done by counsel for over a year. To impress upon counsel the gravity of his repeated failure to obey this Court's orders, on October 3,1968, a fine of P500 was clamped upon him. He was directed to pay that fine in ten days. He was in that order also required to file his brief in fifteen days. He was warned that more drastic disciplinary action would be taken upon his failure to do either. Still he remained unmoved. Then, this Court issued the peremptory order of December 5, 1968 commanding him to show cause within ten days from notice thereof why he should not be suspended from the practice of law for gross misconduct and violation of his oath of office. The Court made it certain that this order would reach him. He personally acknowledged receipt thereof. He has not paid the fine. He has done nothing.

CORRUPT OR WILFUL APPEARANCE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR A PARTY TO A CASE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO

An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to

represent any cause in which he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions.

Prohibition to Practice
Erwin Javellana, an incumbent member of the City

Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago City, and a lawyer by profession, has continuously engaged in the practice of law without securing authority for that purpose from the Regional Director, Department of Local Government, as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 in relation to DLG Memorandum Circular No. 74-58 of the same department; that on July 8, 1989. He also, as counsel for Antonio Javiero and Rolando Catapang, filed a case against City Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia of Bago City for "Illegal Dismissal and Reinstatement with Damages" and in several criminal and civil cases in the city, without prior authority of the DILG Regional Director. An administrative complaint was filed against him.

 Section 90 of the Local Government Code does

not discriminate against lawyers and doctors. It applies to all provincial and municipal officials in the professions or engaged in any occupation. Section 90 explicitly provides that sanggunian members "may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools expect during session hours." If there are some prohibitions that apply particularly to lawyers, it is because of all the professions, the practice of law is more likely than others to relate to, or affect, the area of public service.

REINSTATEMENT
The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to reinstate a disbarred lawyer. The

sole object of the Court upon an application for reinstatement to practice, by one previously disbarred, is to determine whether or not the applicant has satisfied and convinced the Court by positive evidence that the effort he has made toward the rehabilitation of his character has been successful, and, therefore, he is entitled to be re-admitted to a profession which is intrinsically an office of trust.

Jesus Ma. Cui vs. Antonio Cui, G.R. No. L-18727, August 31, 1964 citing therein 7 C.J.S., Attorney & Client, Sec. 41, p. 816.

The decisive questions on an application for

reinstatement are whether applicant is "of good moral character" in the sense in which that phrase is used when applied to attorneys-at-law and is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with the privileges of the office of an attorney, and whether his mental qualifications are such as to enable him to discharge efficiently his duty to the public, and the moral attributes are to be regarded as a separate and distinct from his mental qualifications.

REINSTATEMENT
The disbarred lawyer in the 2003 Bar

examination scandal Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated November 10, 2008. He prays that this Honorable Court "in the exercise of equity and compassion, grant petitioners plea for judicial clemency, and thereupon, order his reinstatement as a member in good standing of the Philippine Bar.

Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion dated November 10, 2008
Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse

expected of him considering the gravity of his transgressions. Even more to his favor, petitioner has redirected focus since his disbarment towards public service, particularly with the Peoples Law Enforcement Board. The attestations submitted by his peers in the community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, such as retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Oscar Herrera, Judge Hilario Laqui, Professor Edwin Sandoval and Atty. Lorenzo Ata, and the ecclesiastical community such as Rev. Fr. Paul Balagtas testify to his positive impact on society at large since the unfortunate events of 2003.

Reinstatement
In cases where the Court has deigned to

lift or commute the supreme penalty of disbarment imposed on the lawyer, the remorse of the disbarred lawyer and the conduct of his public life during his years outside of the bar have been taken into account. There is no concrete guideline as to how long must it take for a disbarred lawyer to be reinstated.

In the Matter of Reinstatement of Tranquilino Rovero

It took twenty-eight year for Atty. Tranquilino Rovero to be

reinstated. He was found guilty for violation of Administrative Code for smuggling. The Court pointed out the twilight years of the petitioner being at age 71 years old. Since his disbarment in 1952, Rovero has honourably dealt with his citizens. He had demonstrated his moral rehabilitation and reformation as to be fit, once more, to engage in the practice of law. He was appointed the secretary of the Provincial Board of Aklan where that province was organized. He had also been the duly accredited delegate of the Aklan Chapter of the Philippine National Red Cross to its Aklan Chapter of the Philippine National Red Cross to its Second Biennial National Convention held in Manila on August 23 to 26, 1957.

In the Matter of Reinstatement of Tranquilino Rovero

He was president of the Quezon City Central Lions Club which he helped organize, and for a time, he was president of the Board of Trustees of the Northwestern Visayan Colleges in Kalibo, Aklan. He has also held high positions of trust in commercial establishments. He had been elected the president of the Filipino Industrial Corporation; the vice-president of the Meteor Company, Inc., and the president of the Rural Bank of Hermosa (Bataan), a position which he holds up to the present. Testimonials have been presented regarding the high esteem accorded him in the community to which he belongs. His good conduct is certified to by the president of the Aklan Bar Association and the parish priest of Christ the King Church who stated that Mr. Rovero "is a devoted parishioner who always gets voluntarily involved in the various charitable activities of the parish," and "is cooperative and responsible and gets along fine with his fellow parishioners. " His conduct has also merited the approval of the late Pres. Ramon Magsaysay who granted him an absolute and unconditional pardon for his crime.

In Re: Petition For Reinstatement In The Roll Of Attorneys, Juan T. Publico, petitioner, February 20, 1981.

Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a

great extent in the sound discretion of the court, The court action will depend, generally speaking, on whether or not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will be conserved by the applicant's participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of good moral character a fit and proper person to practice law. The court will take into consideration the applicant's character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

Tan vs. Sabandal B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992.

The Court denied the petition for reinstatement after it has received numerous petitions preventing the reinstatement. Although there are testimonials attesting to his good moral character; these were

confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case instituted by the Government against him. Those testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and lack of good moral character.

Quingwa vs. Puno In Re: Disbarment of Armando Puno. Flora Quingwa, vs. Armando Puno, G.R. No. 389 January 31, 1972.

As prayed for, respondent Armando Puno is

ordered reinstated in the practice of the law as a member of the Philippine Bar, subject to the conditions that (1) he shall formally acknowledge his child, Armando Puno, Jr., now in the care of the mother, complainant Flora Quingwa, and (2) the said petitioner will provide a minimum amount of P125.00 per month for the support of said child starting from 31 January 1971. Let the name of said respondent be restored to the roll of attorneys upon his taking anew the corresponding oath of office before this Court, and upon his submittal of the formal acknowledgment of his child.

Thank you very much!

Kremil S. David and Michelle Borromeo