AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1, RULE 139-B OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1, RULE 139-B OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT

Q: How is a disbarment proceeding instituted?

A: Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the:

1. Supreme Court motu proprio; or

2. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.

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.

Disbarment Proceedings Before the IBP The IBP Board of Governors may:

1. Motu proprio; or

2. Upon referral by the Supreme Court; or 3. By a Chapter Board of Officers; or 4. At the instance of any person, initiate

and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys including those in the government service; Provided, however, that all charges against Justices of the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, and Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the Supreme Court;

Provided, further, that charges filed against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.

"Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.” (Sec. 1, third par., Rule 139-B, RRC)

Procedural Steps for Disbarment in the IBP:

1. The Board of Governors shall appoint from among the IBP members an investigator or when special circumstances so warrant, a panel of 3 investigators to investigate the complaint;

2. If the complaint is meritorious, the respondent shall be served with a copy

requiring him to answer within 15 days from service.

3. The respondent shall file a verified answer containing 6 copies; after receipt of the answer or lapse of the period to do so, the Supreme Court, may, motu proprio or at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors, upon recommendation by the investigator, suspend an attorney from practice, for any of the causes under Rule 138, Sec. 27, during the pendency of the investigation

4. After joinder of the issues or failure to answer, the respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself. But if the respondent fails to appear to defend himself in spite of notice, the investigator may proceed ex parte. The investigation shall be terminated within 3 months from commencement which period may be extended.

5. The investigator shall make a report to the Board of Governors within 30 days from termination of the investigation which report shall contain his findings and recommendations together with the evidence.

6. The Board of Governors shall have the power to review the decision of the investigator. Its decision shall be promulgated within a period not exceeding 30 days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the report of the investigator.

7. If the decision is a finding of guilt of the charges, the IBP Board of Governors shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations which shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action together with the record.

If the decision is for exoneration, or if the sanction is less than suspension or dismissal, the Board shall issue a decision exonerating the respondent of imposing a lesser sanction. The resolution exonerating the respondent shall be considered as terminating the case unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within 15 days from notice of the Board’s decision.

Resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 17, 2008 B.M. No. 1755

121

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S (Re: Rules of Procedure of the Commission on

Bar Discipline)

Q: Is a motion for reconsideration allowed?

A: It depends.

1. A party can no longer file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution of the Investigating Commissioner, such motion being a prohibited pleading.

2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of the Board of Governors (BOG) can be entertained, an aggrieved party can file said motion with the BOG within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt thereof by said party.

3. In case a decision is rendered by the BOG that exonerates the respondent or imposes a sanction less than suspension or disbarment, the aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day period from notice. If the motion is denied, said party can file a petition for a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the resolution resolving the motion. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the decision shall become final and executory and a copy of said decision shall be furnished the Supreme Court.

4. If the imposable penalty is suspension from the practice of law or disbarment, the BOG shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations.

The aggrieved party can file a motion for reconsideration of said resolution with the BOG within fifteen (15) days from notice.

The BOG shall first resolve the incident and shall thereafter elevate the assailed resolution with the entire case records to the Supreme Court for final action. If the 15-day period lapses without any motion for reconsideration having been filed, then the BOG shall likewise transmit to this Court the resolution with the entire case records for appropriate action.

Note: Lawyers must update their records with the IBP by informing the IBP National Office or their respective chapters of any change in office or residential address and other contact details.In case such change is not duly updated, service of notice on the office or residential address appearing in the

records of the IBP National Office shall constitute sufficient notice to a lawyer for purposes of administrative proceedings against him. (Keld Stemmerik v. Atty. Leonuel Mas, A.C. No. 8010, June 16, 2009)

Disbarment Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

1. In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other proceeding 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 of Rule 139-B, RRC, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court (Sec. 13, Rule 139-B, RRC)

Note: Reference of the Court to the IBP of complaints against lawyers is not mandatory (Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79590-707; Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80578, October 7,1988).

Note: Reference of complaints to the IBP is not an exclusive procedure under Rule 139-B, RRC.

The Court may conduct disciplinary proceedings without the intervention of the IBP by referring cases for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court. In such case, the report or recommendation of the investigating official shall be reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. (Bautista v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 1626, February 12,1990; Funa, 2009)

2. Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations together with the record and all the evidence presented in the investigation for the final action of the Supreme Court. (Sec. 14, Rule 139-B, RRC) Q: Atty. Narag’s spouse filed a petition for disbarment because her husband courted one of his students, maintained the said student as a mistress and had children with her. On the other hand, Atty. Narag claimed that his wife was a possessive, jealous woman who abused him and filed the complaint against him out of spite.

Atty. Narag, however, failed to refute the testimony given against him. His actions were of public knowledge. Is Atty. Narag’s disbarment appropriate?

A: Yes, Atty. Narag failed to prove his innocence because he failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute and suffering to his wife and children. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. As a lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a belief that he is flouting those moral standards. (Narag v. Atty.

Narag, A.C. No. 3405, June 29, 1998)

Q: What is the effect of a lawyer’s death during pendency of disciplinary action against him?

A:

1. Renders the action moot and academic, but

2. The Court may still resolve the case on its merit in order to clear publicly the name of the lawyer.

123

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S

PROCEDURE FOR DISBARMENT OR DISCIPLINE