Disciplinary Proceedings Sec 5 (5), Art. VIII: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:.

.(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Penalty imposed may be: Disbarment Suspension Reprimand Fine and Others YAP-PARAS vs. PARAS (Objectives of Disbarment) In a number of cases, we have repeatedly explained and stressed that the purpose of disbarment is not meant as a punishment to deprive an attorney of a means of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the courts and the public from members of the bar who have become unfit and unworthy to be part of the esteemed and noble profession. Likewise, the purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court to assure respect for court orders by attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice. Nature of Disbarment Proceedings Sui Generis Prescriptive Period Effect of Desistance CALUB vs. SULLER The record discloses that the Court of First Instance acquitted respondent Suller for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Such acquittal, however, is not determinative of this administrative case. BENGCO vs. BERNARDO The Supreme Court found untenable Respondents defense of prescription that the complaint was filed two years after the supposed deceit was committed. Administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offending act to the institution of the administrative complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer. TIONG vs. FLORENDO A case for suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. It is not an investigation into the respondents acts as a husband but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar. Hence, the affidavit, which is akin to an affidavit of desistance, cannot have the effect of abating the proceedings. ANACTA vs. RESURRECCION Finding Respondent guilty of deceit and gross misconduct, the Supreme Court suspended him from law practice reasoning that, there is no ironclad rule that disbarment must immediately follow upon a finding of deceit or gross misconduct. The Court is not mandated to automatically impose the extreme penalty of disbarment where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. YU vs. PALAA Administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. 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, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. PHILUX, INC. vs. NLRC The general rule is that a client is bound by the acts, even mistakes, of his counsel in the realm of procedural technique. The exception to this rule is when the negligence of counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his day in court, in which case the remedy then is to reopen the case and allow the party who was denied his day in court to adduce his evidence. ADVINCULA vs. MACABATA The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors. When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct. BARRIOS vs. MARTINEZ Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the Honorable Supreme Court or the IBP may motu proprio initiate the proceedings when they perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions or when their attention is called by any one and a probable cause exists that an act has been perpetrated by a lawyer which requires disciplinary sanctions. WILKIE vs. LIMOS We have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyers unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. 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. SORIANO vs. DIZON x x x. 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. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

GONZAGA vs. VILLANUEVA, JR. A lawyer must at no time be wanting in probity and moral fiber which are not only conditions precedent to his entrance to the Bar but are likewise essential demands for his continued membership therein. However, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and must be used only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the Bar. Disbarment should never be decreed where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired. VARGAS vs. IGNES Consequently, for respondents willful appearance as counsels of KWD without authority to do so, there is a valid ground to impose disciplinary action against them. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. Investigation is Conducted by: The Supreme Court The IBP (through the Commission on Bar Discipline) Any authorized body (e.g. SolGen)

Judicial in Nature Private and confidential in nature except that the final order shall be made public. Presumption of innocence still applies but an acquittal in a criminal case is not a bar to disciplinary proceedings. Defendant should be given ample time to prepare. Clearly Preponderant Evidence is required. Burden of Proof rests upon the complainant. Must be grounded on violation of their oath or the canons of the profession and not merely for losing a case. Disbarment is not necessarily a permanent disability since the lawyer may be reinstated on proper application or on petition for that purpose addressed to the Court, usually by a motion showing that he has reformed himself. Filing of complaint and investigation Authorized officers to investigate Supreme Court, IBP through the Commission on Bar Discipline (investigating arm of the IBP) or authorized investigators and the SolGen The Court of Appeals and the RTC- against lawyers who appear for litigants in cases pending before them. Only suspension, not disbarment. IBP - Moto Proprio or upon verified complaint of any person or upon referral by the SC or by an IBP Chapter Board of Officers Where to file: Supreme Court IBP National Office or Any of the IBP Chapter Offices in the country How Instituted? Complaint shall state clearly and concisely the acts complained of supported by affidavits to substantiate the facts. Who can file? Any person aggrieved by the misconduct of a lawyer or any person even if not aggrieved but knows of the lawyers misconduct, unlawful or unethical act. Involves no private interest. It is akin to a public crime which can be initiated by anybody. Effect of Withdrawal of Complaint Discipline of Filipino Lawyers Practicing Abroad If it is also a ground for disciplinary action under Philippine law, he may be suspended or disbarred in this country. Reinstatement Means the readmission to membership in the Bar and the restoration to a disbarred lawyer the privilege to practice law. Power to reinstate: Supreme Court Objective: To determine whether the applicant has satisfied and convinced the court by positive evidence that: There is successful rehabilitation of character which would entitle readmission to the profession. positive evidence Written testimonials from credible institutions and personalities showing of proof of honesty, integrity and good moral character. Criteria: Applicants character and standing prior to disbarment; Nature and character of misconduct for which he was disbarred; Conduct subsequent to disbarment; His efficient government service; Time elapsed and circumstances that he has been sufficiently punished; Applicants appreciation of the significance of his misconduct and assurance that he now possesses the required probity and integrity; and Favorable endorsement of the IBP and pleas of his loved ones. Effects:

 Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law. Shall be subject to same rules and regulations as any other lawyer. Comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission. Lawyers who have been suspended, disbarred, or repatriated IN RE: SUSPENSION FROM LAW PRACTICE IN THE TERRITORY OF GUAM OF ATTY. LEON G. MAQUERA Disbarment/suspension of a Philippine Bar member 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 disbarment or suspension if the basis of such action constitutes a ground for disbarment/suspension from law practice in the Philippines. The judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency shall be prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment/suspension. DUMADAG vs. LUMAYA Indefiniteness of Respondents 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 Bar member and officer of the courts. MANIAGO vs. DE DIOS To be sure, the Supreme Court laid the following guidelines in relation to resumption of practice following full service of suspension, to wit: (a) the suspended lawyer must first present proof of his compliance by submitting certifications from the IBP and Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from law practice during the period of suspension; (b) thereafter, the Court, after evaluation and upon favorable recommendation from the Office of the Bar Confidant, will issue a resolution lifting the suspension order and allow him to resume his practice. REYES vs. VITAN Supreme Court granted Respondents application for reinstatement effective upon his submission to the Court of a sworn statement that: (a) he has completely served the four suspension orders imposed on him successively; (b) he desisted from the law practice during the period of suspension; (c) he has returned the sums of money to the complainants as ordered by the court in the previous administrative cases; (d) he has furnished copies of his sworn statement to the IBP and the Executive Judge. RICHARDS vs. ASOY The numerous letters reporting Respondents non-compliance, glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. By taking his sweet time to effect reimbursement of the P16,000.00 and through consignation with this Court at that - he sent out a strong message that the legal processes and orders of this Court could be treated with disdain or impunity. Notarial Law Qualifications Citizen of the Philippines Must be over 21 years of age Resident of the Philippines for at least 1 year and maintains a regular place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to be issued Member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the IBP Must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving moral turpitude. Petition filed at and commission issued by the Executive Judge. Term of Office: 2 years commencing on the 1st day of January on the year the commission was made unless otherwise revoked or the notary public resigns. Jurisdiction: within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Powers and Limitations Perform the following notarial act: Acknowledgments Oath and affirmations

 Jurats Signature witnessings Copy certifications Any other act authorized Certify the affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark on an instrument or document presented for notarization if: Affixed in his presence and two other disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the document. Both witnesses sign their own names in addition to the thumb or other mark. There is an indication below the mark :Thumb or Other Mark affixed by (name of signatory of the mark) in the presence of (names and addresses of the witnesses) and undersigned notary public. Notarized the mark through acknowledgment, jurat or signature witnessing. Sign on behalf of a person who is physically unable to sign or make a mark on an instrument or document if: He is directed by the person who is unable to sign. The signature is affixed in the presence of 2 disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the document. Both witnesses sign their own names. It is indicated that: Signature affixed by notary public in presence of (names and addresses of witnesses). Notarized his signature by acknowledgment or jurat. Gen.Rule: Notarial act must only be performed within his regular place of work. Exceptions: (performed at the request of the parties and at the ff sites w/in his territorial jurisdiction) Public offices, convention halls, and similar places where oaths may be administered; Public function areas in hotels and similar places; Hospitals and other medical institutions where a party is confined for treatment; and Any place where a party to an instrument is under detention. No notarial act if persons involved in the instrument is: Not in the notarys presence personally at the time of the notarization; and Not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity. Notarial Register Keep, maintain, protect and provide for lawful inspection. Chronological official notarial register or notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound book with numbered pages. Keep only one active notarial register at any given time. Revocation of Commission Revocation done by the Executive Judge. Upon a verified complaint by any interested, affected or aggrieved person. Notary public may be required to file a verified answer to the complaint. If not satisfactory, Exec. Judge may order a summary hearing. Appeal may be made to the SC for review, pending appeal, the sanction is immediately executory, unless otherwise ordered by the SC. Exec. Judge is also empowered to motu proprio initiate the administrative proceedings. Grounds: Fails to keep a notarial register; Fails to make proper entries; Fails to send the copy of the entries to the Executive Judge within the first 10 days of the following month; Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of expiration of his commission; Fails to submit his notarial register; Fails to make his report within a reasonable time; Fails to require the presence of parties at the time of the notarial act; Fails to identify a principal on the basis of personal knowledge or competent evidence; Executes a false or incomplete certificate; Knowingly performs or fails to perform any act mandated by the Notarial Practice Act; and

Commits any other dereliction which is adjudged by the Executive Judge as a good cause for revocation of commission or imposition of administrative sanction. Competent Evidence Identity Identification of an individual based on: At least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual; or The oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public or any two credible witnesses (with documentary identification) and who personally knows the individual. ESPINOSA v. OMANA Kasunduan Ng Paghihiwalay In preparing and notarizing a void document, Respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 (duty not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful). Respondent knew fully that the Kasunduan has no legal effect and is against public policy. Even granting arguendo that, it was her part-time staff who notarized the contract, it only showed Respondents negligence in doing her notarial duties. A notary public is personally responsible for the entries in his notarial register and he could not relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the blame on his secretaries or any member of his staff. TAN TIONG BIO v. GONZALES Respondent was duly commissioned as a notary public for Quezon City but notarized a deed of sale in Pasig City. In suspending Respondent, the Supreme Court reasoned that, while seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, Respondents act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. UY v. SAO Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest converting a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. As such, only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. Respondents reliance upon his aides representation that his commission had been renewed shows disregard of the requirements for issuance of a notarial commission. DELA CRUZ v. DIMAANO, JR. The Supreme Court held that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed it and personally appeared before them to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, otherwise, notaries public would not be able to verify the genuineness of the signatures and whether the document is the partys free act or deed. Notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented the proper residence certificate. LINCO v. LACEBAL The Supreme Court suspended Respondent from law practice and being a notary public finding that, affiants previous personal appearance before Respondent does not justify the notarization of the deed due to affiants absence on the day of notarization. The rule requires Respondent not to notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truthfulness. Further, in the notarial acknowledgment, Respondent attested to affiants personal appearance before him on the day of notarization, yet, affiant clearly could not have appeared as he already died a day before. Clearly, Respondent made a false statement and violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. Read: NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Memorize the Lawyers Oath