‘The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege” (Bongolonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310 [1951]).
“Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least 21 years of age, of good moral character and a 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” (Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
“Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by 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 or persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. The IBP Board of Governors may, motu proprio 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 any erring attorney, including those in the government service”. (Rule 139-B, Rules of Court).
Disbarment is the extreme measure of discipline of an attorney, which is taking away his/her license to practice law, often for life. 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 the prefix “Atty.” Neither can he sign pleadings even if he does not personally appear in court. Disbarment only comes after investigation and opportunities for the attorney to explain his improper conduct.
The cause of permanent disbarment include 1) conviction of a felony involving moral turpitude, 2) forgery, 3) fraud, 4) a history of dishonesty, 5) consistent lack of attention to clients, 6) abandoning several clients, 7) alcoholism or drug abuse, which affect the attorney’s ability to practice, 8) theft of funds or 9) any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics.
Singular incidents (other than felony conviction) will generally result in reprimand, suspension and/or a requirement that the lawyer correct his conduct, show remorse and/or pass a test on legal ethics.
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]).
The burden of proof required in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension is “clearly preponderant evidence”, not “proof beyond reasonable doubt”, which is necessary in criminal cases (Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool Inc. v. Naldoza, A.C. 4017, September 29, 1999). Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court shall be published like its decisions in other cases (Rule 139-B, Section 18, Rules of Court). This is not a restriction on the freedom of the press. If there is a legitimate public interest, media is not prohibited from making a fair, true and accurate news report of a disbarment complaint (Fortun v. Members of the Media, GR 194578, February 13, 2013).
There are currently around 40,000 lawyers on the rolls of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as of 2016. For a population of more than 100 million, this does not seem like a large number. There is one lawyer for every 2,500 Filipinos, but even then people complain that there are too many lawyers in the Philippines (https://www.quora.com).
According to Supreme Court Bar Confidant lawyer Maria Cristina Layuza, there will be at least 7,000 applicants taking the bar examinations this year. When Congress passed Republic Act (RA) 7662, or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993, there were only 59 law schools. As of 2016 this has bloated to 125 law schools. RA 7662 is aimed at “uplifting the standards of the education in order to prepare law students for advocacy, counseling, problem solving and decision making, to infuse in them the ethics of the legal profession; to impress on them the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession as an equal and indispensable partner of the Bench in the administration of justice; and to develop social competence”.
(Section 2, RA 7662)
Perhaps the solution to deceit, malpractice, gross immoral conduct and moral turpitude of lawyers is not disbarment or suspension, but a close monitoring and supervision of law schools to ensure that they are infusing in their law students the importance, nobility and dignity of the legal profession so that when these law students are admitted to the Bar, they subscribe in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice and swear to become guardians of truth and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the fair and impartial dispensation of justice.
Otherwise, William Shakespeare’s controversial famous line in Henry VI (Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2), “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”, may not actually be a bad idea!
1 comment
kapunan should be the lawyer to be disbarred for using her profession for political considerations