Report on

“DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEY” &

“ATTORNEY’S ROLL AND DUTIES OF ATTORNEYS”

By: Atty. Felix Voltaire P. Lerio II

Submitted to

Atty. Irmina H. Bautista, Ll. M., D.C. L.

In Compliance with the Requirements for:

Judicial & Legal Ethics: Issues and Reforms

San Sebastian College- Recoletos Graduate School of Law
1st Semester, Academic Year 2018- 2019

-0-0-0-

Before proceeding to Rule 139-B that is the Rule pertaining to

“Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys”, I find it proper to point out
that what “Rule 139-A” refers to is the establishment of The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The provision is actually an
insertion brought about by the passage of Republic Act No. 6397 which
took effect on January 16, 1973.

Presented below is a breakdown of the Rules subject of this

report in a format believed to make recall easier as to the flow of the
process in the institution of complaints against members of the Bar. It
will be noted that some Sections/ provisions were placed in a
sequence as they are encountered when a complaint is actually filed.

RULE 139-B: Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys

1
Section 1. How Instituted.

A. By the Supreme Court motu propio; or

a. SC may refer the case for investigation to the (i) Sol. Gen.,
or (2) to any other officer of the SC or a judge of a lower
court (Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation);

b. Report of the results of the investigation shall be direct

with the SC [Section 14) unlike in Section 10, report of
investigator shall be to the IBP Board of Governors;

B. IBP Board of Governors

a. motu propio;
b. Referral by the SC
c. Referral by an IBP Chapter, by Resolution of its Board of
Officers
d. At the instance of any person

- Complaint shall be referred to the National Grievance

Investigators. (Section 3. Duties of the Nat’l. Grievance
Investigators)

Form:

i. Verified Complaint- 6 copies filed with the Secretary of

IBP/ Chapter;
ii. State clearly and concisely the facts complained of;
iii. Supported by affidavits of credible witnesses/ evidence

iv. Section 4. IBP Chapter may assist the complainant.

v. Answer shall be verified. (Section 6. Verification and

service of Answer.)

2
(A) Proceedings In the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Section 2. National Grievance Investigation.

- Upon receipt of complaint, Investigator or panel of 3

investigators are appointed to investigate and*terminate
within 3 months unless extended upon application (*Section
8.). Depositions may be taken before any member of the
Board of Governors, President of any Chapter or any officer
authorized by law to administer oath. If outside the
Philippines, before any diplomatic or consular representative
or before any person agree upon by the parties or designated
by the Board of Governors. (Section 9);

- Investigator has power to issue subpoenas and administer

oath. May proceed ex parte. (Section 8) Refusal to obey
subpoena is indirect contempt of court .

- IBP Board of Governors shall appoint counsel to assist

complainant or respondent if needed (Section 7.
Administrative counsel.)

- Grounds for disqualification of Investigator:

o Relationship within the 4th degree of consanguinity or
affinity to party or counsel;
o Pecuniary interest;
o Personal bias;
o Being counsel to either party, unless parties consent in
writing for his continuation as Investigator;

- Where Investigator does not disqualify himself, party may

appeal to the IBP Board of Governors. He may be disqualified
by majority vote, there being a quorum.

3
 - Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due
hearing, by vote of at least 6 members. Disqualification is
final.

- Upon termination of investigation, within 30 days the

Investigator shall submit report to the IBP Board of
Governors (Section 10. Report of Investigator)

Section 5. Service of dismissal.

- If meritorious, Investigator will require respondent to answer

(15 days)
- If unmeritorious, or answer satisfies the Investigator that the
complaint has no merit, Investigator may recommend to the
Board the dismissal of complaint;
- Dismissal of complaint shall be forwarded to the SC;
- Complainant may appeal or SC motu propio may review;

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. (Amendment pursuant to Supreme
Court Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356).

Section 11. Defects. No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the

proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered
as substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon
considering the whole record, finds that such defect has
resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which
event the Board shall take such remedial action as the
circumstances may warrant, including invalidation of the
entire proceedings.
4
Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.

- Every case shall be reviewed by the IP Board of Governors;

- Decision shall be in writing;
- To promulgated within a period not exceeding 30 days from
the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the
Investigator’s Report;
- Majority vote of total membership (6/10) determines the
ruling;
- Penalties
o Suspension
o Admonition
o Reprimand
o Fine

- Appeal of IBP ruling is with the SC

(C) Common Provisions

Section 15. Suspension of attorney by the SC.

After receipt of Respondent’s answer or lapse of the period

to file:
- motu propio; or
- at the instance of the IBP Board of Governors, upon
recommendation of Investigator
- Suspension is until SC orders otherwise.

Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the CA or RTC.

Section 17. Upon suspension by the CA or RTC, further proceedings in
the SC.

- The CA 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 SC in the case;

5
 - Upon suspension, order of suspension and statement of
facts as basis forthwith transmitted to the SC;

- Upon receipt by the SC, full investigation conducted

- Order of suspension may be:
o Revoked
o Shortened
o Extended
o Attorney disbarred.

Section 18. Confidentiality.

- Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and

confidential.
- However, the final order of the SC shall be published like
decisions.

Section 19. Expenses. Parties may be charged for the expenses

incurred in relation to the disciplinary proceedings.

Section 20. This Rule took effect June 1, 1998 superseding Rule 139
“Disbarment or Suspension of Attorneys”. All pending
cases with the OSG were transferred to the IBP Board of
Governors for their investigation and disposition.

Removal/ Suspension of Attorneys under Rules 138

Section 27. Grounds for the removal or suspension by the SC:

- Deceit

LEAH B. TADAY vs. ATTY. DIONISIO B. APOYA, JR. (April 30, 2007,
Roll No. 53891)
A.C. NO. 11981, July 3, 2018

6
 The Complainant is an OFW working in Norway. In 2011, she
asked her parents to look for a lawyer for the nullification of her
marriage. Her parents contracted the services of Atty. Apoya for a fee
of Php140,000.00 and had a Retainer Agreement on April 17, 2011.
A petition was filed, notarized by Atty. Apoya, and was raffled to
Branch 131 RTC Caloocan City.
In November 17, 2011, while complainant was on vacation in the
Philippines, Atty. Apoya gave her a decision, dated November 16, 2011,
which granted the annulment. However, complainant noticed that it
was poorly crafted, and signed by a Judge Ma. Eliza Becamon- Angeles
of RTC 162. She also thought the decision came too soon. After
verifying the decision, she discovered it was fake.
While the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline recommended only
the suspension for 2 years of Atty. Apoya , upon review by the SC he
was ultimately disbarred.

- Malpractice, including soliciting cases at law for the purpose of

gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers

PILAR IBANA-ANDRADE et al. vs. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA (April 27,

1985. Roll No. 33612)
A.C. NO. 8313, July 14, 2015

The complainants were employees who had a pending complaint

for illegal dismissal against Mabini College, Inc., that included Atty.
Paita- Moy, who also served as counsel for the defendants in that
illegal dismissal case.
While the cases were filed, the complainants discovered that Atty.
Paita- Moya had just been suspended for 1 month from the practice of
law and that it was still effective at the time the cases were pending.
So, they filed a complaint with the SC which then referred the matter
to the IBP for investigation.
With Atty. Paita- Moya’s defense being denial and ignorance of
the order, the SC found her guilty of malpractice and ordered an
additional 6 month suspension against her.

7
WILSON CHAM vs. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA
A.C. No. 7494, June 27, 2008

The complainant here is the lessor of Atty. Paita- Moya. He filed a

complaint for disbarment against respondent for deceit for non-
payment of rent and surreptitiously vacating the leased premises.
In defense, Atty. Paita Moya denied liability and that she did not
know how to contact the lessor to be able to turn over the keys to the
leased unit.
The Investigator recommended that the respondent be suspended
for 3 months but the IBP Board of Governors resolved to dismiss the
case. The SC, however, ruled to suspend the respondent for 1 month
for gross misconduct.

- Other gross misconduct in such office

- Grossly immoral conduct

GIZALE O. TUMBAGA vs. ATTY. MANUEL P. TEOXON (April 26,

1989, Roll No. 35493)
A.C. No. 5573, November 21, 2017

The respondent here was found guilty of gross immorality and

was suspended for 3 years from the practice of law, with a stern
warning.
The complainant complained against the respondent for gross
immorality, deceitful and fraudulent conduct, and gross misconduct.
From the records it appears that complainant had an illicit affair with
the respondent and out of that relationship they had 1 child.
Complainant alleged that she was made to believe that
respondent could marry her as his marriage with his wife was a sham
not having been registered. Atty. Teoxon convinced complainant to
live with him until their cohabitation bore fruit.
Later, however, respondent failed to provide support. In the birth
certificate of their child, he signed differently making the same
8
doubtful in its authenticity that complainant had to make him sign
again. Then, there was also a case for replevin filed by the respondent
against the complainant as the former tried to recover clothing
materials left in th apartment he and the complainant used to live in.

- Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

WALTER WILKIE vs. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS (May 8, 1991, Roll

No. 36754)
A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008

The Respondent here was the counsel of complainant in an

adoption case. Then Respondent borrowed money from the
complainant in the amount of P250,000.00 and for which respondent
issued 2 PDCs.
The checks were dishonored when deposited for payment, hence,
complainant filed a case for Violation of BP 22 against Respondent.
In the course of the criminal case, the complainant executed an
affidavit of desistance against respondent. However, no such
withdrawal was made as regards the IBP case. According to the
records, the issuance of the checks by the Respondent was in
accommodation of a third party who has since died, which is the
consideration for the affidavit of desistance in the criminal case.
In spite of the desistance in the criminal case, the SC still ruled
against the Respondent and meted out the penalty of suspension for 3
months. It cited Section 4 Rule 139-B on the dismissal of complaints.
In this case, the Investigator was also cited in his
recommendation that the issuance of a worthless check is a crime
involving moral turpitude. The SC, likewise, ruled that such non-
payment of a just debt is gross misconduct.

- For any violation of the Lawyer’s Oath

- For a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior
court
- For corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do
9
RODRIGO A. MOLINA vs. ATTY. CEFERINO R. MAGAT (March 2,
1956, Roll No. 9874)
A.C. No. 1900, June 13, 2002

The complainant had filed a criminal complaint against one

Pascual De Leon for Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority
and Breach of the Peace and Resisting Arrest. Atty. Magat is the
counsel of the Respondent. Atty Magat filed a Motion to Quash
Information on Assault citing double jeopardy which, however, was
proven baseless and untrue. Such filing of a baseless motion the
complainant filed the case against Atty Magat in May 5, 1978.
Additionally, Atty Magat was complained for appearing in court as
counsel despite being suspended from the practice of law.
In defense, Atty. Magat raised honest mistake in the filing of his
motion to quash. For appearing in court despite being suspended, he
argued it was for justifiable grounds.
The SC final ruling was to suspend Atty. Magat for 6 months with
a warning.

Section 28. Grounds for the Suspension of attorney by the CA or RTC.

- Same grounds as in Section 27

- After such suspension such attorney shall not practice his
profession until further action of the Supreme Court.

Section 29. Upon suspension by the Court of Appeals or Court of First

Instance, further proceedings in Supreme Court. —

- CA or RTC shall forthwith transmit to the SC a certified copy of

the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon
which the same was based;

- Upon the receipt of such certified copy and statement, the

Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the facts
involved and make such order:

10
 o Revoking
o extending the suspension, or
o removing the attorney from his office as such, as the facts
warrant.

Section 30. Attorney to be heard before removal or suspension. — No

attorney shall be removed or suspended from the practice
of his profession, until he has had full opportunity upon
reasonable notice to answer the charges against him, to
produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to be heard by
himself or counsel. But if upon reasonable notice he fails
to appear and answer the accusation, the court may
proceed to determine the matter ex parte.

Rule 138
Attorneys and Admission to the Bar

Section 19. Attorney's roll. — The clerk of the Supreme Court shall
keep a roll of all attorneys admitted to practice, which roll
shall be signed by the person admitted when he receives his
certificate.

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and

to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of

justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as

appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

11
 (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided
to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and
honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to

himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no
compensation in connection with his client's business except
from him or with his knowledge and approval;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no

fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the

continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's
cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the

cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and

honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the
guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law
permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

----

12
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 the misconduct of the officers of the court and to
ensure the proper administration of justice. Disbarment proceedings
are sui generis (a class of its own). Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. (In Re Almacen
GR L-27654 [1970]) Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor. (Dinsay v. Cioco, A.C. 2995, November 27, 1966) Double
jeopardy cannot be availed of against an attorney, since disbarment
does not partake of a criminal proceeding. The In Pari Delicto rule is
not applicable. (Samaniego v. Ferrer, A.C. 7022, June 18, 2008) There
is no prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings and neither is
there prescription. (Calo v. Degamo, A.C. 516, June 27, 1967) It can be
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or the IBP; it can be
initiated even without a complaint, it can proceed regardless of lack of
interest of the complainants, if the facts proven so warrant. It is,
likewise, not a civil case and, thus, monetary claims cannot be granted
except restitution and return of monies and properties of the client
given in the course of the lawyer-client relationship. An affidavit of
withdrawal of the disbarment or suspension case does not, in any
way, exonerate the respondent. The case may proceed regardless of
interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is
whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge
of deceit or grossly immoral conduct has been proven (Rayos-
Ombac v. Rayos, 285 SCRA 93 [1983]).

13