Suspension, Disbarment And Discipline Of Lawyers | Rule 139-B

Suspension, Disbarment & Discipline of Lawyers | Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court | and Related Rules

In this article, we shall tackle suspension, disbarment, and discipline of attorneys. The step by step procedure in filing a complaint and the grounds there for. Law is a noble profession. As such, lawyers shall respect his or her profession by practicing the same in a manner that is consistent with legal and ethical standards of an attorney-at-law.

Otherwise, he may be subjected to a disciplinary action, whether motu propio initiated by the Supreme Court or upon a complaint of a third person. The practice of law must be consistent with legal ethics.

Therefore, in this instance, we shall go through the process of how to initiate a complaint against erring lawyers of the legal profession, particularly in the Philippines.

At the outset, it is best to stress the current procedural rule after the IBP Board of Governors has resolved certain administrative case against a lawyer. Thus:

“As a preliminary procedural matter, it is fit to note that Bar Matter No. 1645 (B.M. No. 1645) dated 13 October 2015 amended Section 12 of Rule 139-B on the Review and Recommendation by the Board of Governors, as follows:¹

“Sec. 12. Review and Recommendation by the Board of Governors.²

“a) 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.²

“b) After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the investigator’s report.²

“c) The Board’s resolution, together with the entire records and all evidence presented and submitted, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action within ten (10) days from issuance of the resolution.²

“d) Notice of the resolution shall be given to all parties through their counsel, if any.²

“Hence, a resolution of the IBP Board of Governors, arising from its review of the report of the IBP Investigating Commissioner, and which either recommends the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action. B.M. No. 1645³ did away with the procedure of filing a motion for reconsideration as well as a petition for review of the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Thus, the Court will proceed to take final action on the Complaint.”²

IBP (Integrated Bar of the Philippines) Commission on Bar Discipline

The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD or Commission), with its principal office at the IBP Bldg., Julia Vargas St., Ortigas Center, Pasig City, is the body tasked and authorized by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to investigate erring members of the bar through a due process proceeding, eventually leading to disciplinary actions.

The purpose of the disciplinary proceeding is to protect the public and the administration of justice from erring attorneys who have not discharged, will not discharge, or unlikely to properly discharge their duties and obligations to their clients, the public, the legal system and profession.

How will a complaint before the commission be instituted?

Under Section 1, Rule No. 139-B of the Rules of Court (as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645,⁴ as will be discussed below) and pursuant to B.M. No. 1755,⁵ proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken and conducted by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon a verified complaint filed by any person.

An administrative complaint against a lawyer directly filed before the Supreme Court can also be referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The valid complaint shall be referred by IBP to the Commission on Bar Discipline wherein it will assign a competent investigation commissioner to investigate the complaint, conduct hearing, and recommend the appropriate disciplinary sanction or dismissal in a report submitted to the IBP Governors.

The report shall be reviewed by the IBP Governors and by a majority vote shall promulgate a resolution on the case. The whole record of the case may be forwarded to the Supreme Court for finality of decision involving suspension and disbarment.

What is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is the official national body of our country which is composed of all of the country’s lawyers whose names are included in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

It was created through the enactment on September 17, 1971 of Republic Act [RA] 6397–An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor–wherein within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit.⁶

So that in May 4, 1973, Presidential Decree [PD] No. 181⁷ was signed into law constituting the IBP as a body corporate.

The fundamental purposes of the IBP are the following:

1. To elevate the standards of the legal profession
2. Improve the administration of justice
3. Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively

In the current structure of the IBP, it is governed by nine governors representing the several regional chapters in the country which are the regions of Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Greater Manila, Southern Luzon, Bicolandia, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern Mindanao, and Western Mindanao.

These governors will select the National President and Vice-President from among themselves or from any of the member of the Integrated Bar. These IBP Governors act as en banc in reviewing cases of complaints against the lawyers submitted before them for resolution.

Is IBP a government agency or it is merely acting by virtue of a delegated power with respect to hearing cases against lawyers?

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is an official organization created by the state through a special law, Republic Act No. 6397, enacted by congress creating it to formally provide an official and formal organization unifying the members of the bar in the country.

By Presidential Decree No. 181, IBP has been created as a body corporate having a constitution and by-laws including grievance procedure for the enforcement and maintenance of discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, appropriating funds for its operation and to make rules and regulations consistent with the rules of Court particularly Rules 139-A and 139-B.

Such laws were enacted in accordance with the constitutional provision that the Supreme Court is conferred with the power to promulgate rules concerning to the admission to the practice of law as embodied in the 1935 and 1973 constitutions.

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution which confers upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integrated bar of the Philippines.

This power includes the power to discipline and dismiss members of the bar who violated their oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Supreme Court through Rule 139-B as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645, delegated to the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline the power to hear cases against lawyers.

Nonetheless, such delegated power only includes the power to investigate, conduct hearing, and give recommendations. The power to discipline and dismiss erring lawyers still rest with the Supreme Court, hence, the promulgation of Bar Matter No. 1645.

What are the grounds for disbarment of lawyers in the Philippines?

In a number of jurisprudence, conviction for the crimes of bribery and estafa are grounds for disbarment or conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude.

In Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes,⁸ the latter was disbarred because it was proven that he was a philanderer for having illicit affairs with two women.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:⁹

“Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”⁹

“Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.”⁹

“Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”⁹

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer’s conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.⁹

Having committed immoral act is not enough to disbar an attorney. It must be shown that what was committed was a grossly immoral act.

As a lawyer, therefore, he or she must demonstrate that he or she has good moral character and should behave in accordance with the legal and ethical standards of being one.

In Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, it is expressly provided that Attorneys can be removed or suspended by Supreme Court on the following grounds:

1. deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
2. grossly immoral conduct, or
3. by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or
4. for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or
5. for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or
6. for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do.

The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or broker also constitutes malpractice.

Disbarment procedure in the Philippines – Step by step

As provided in Rule 139-B as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645, the following steps are to be taken in a disbarment procedure before the Commission on Bar Discipline:¹⁰

1. A complaint for disbarment from the Supreme Court may be referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or a verified complaint for disbarment is filed before the IBP.¹¹
2. Six (6) 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.¹²
3. For meritorious complaint, it shall be served to the respondent lawyer who is required to file an answer within fifteen days from the date of service. For unmeritorious complaint, the investigator will recommend to the Board of Governors to dismiss the complaint.¹²
4. The investigating commissioner shall conduct the hearing, allowing the respondent with the assistance of his counsel to present his defense including his evidence and witnesses. The hearing will terminate within three months from its commencement unless extended for good cause.¹²
5. Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator Commissioner will submit his report containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors.¹²
6. The IBP Board of Governors shall review the report and in a majority vote on its total membership shall recommend to the Supreme Court the sanction of disbarment against the respondent Within thirty (30) days from the submission of the report it shall issue a resolution on the case.¹²
7. Within ten (10) days from its issuance of the resolution, the resolution together with the original records of the case, shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court for approval.¹²

Can an aggrieved party file a disbarment or administrative case against a lawyer directly with the Supreme Court?

The aggrieved party can file a disbarment or administrative case against a lawyer directly with the Supreme Court. In so many settled cases by the Supreme Court, complaints for disbarment or administrative cases were filed directly with the Supreme Court.

However, the Supreme Court, not being a trier of facts, shall refer the complaints to the Integrated Bar of the Philippine Commission on Bar Discipline or any fact-finding body authorized by law or rules for this purpose for proper investigation, hearing, and recommendation before finally deciding on such cases or, the rule says, for “final action”.

Section 1 of Bar Matter No. 1645 amending Rule 139-B provides that proceedings for disbarment may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio or upon filing of a verified complaint of any person before the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

After filing directly before the Supreme Court, what will the High Court do with the case against the lawyer?

After filing directly before the Supreme Court, the latter, other than remanding the complaint to the IBP, may refer the case against the lawyer to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court for investigation.

Investigation shall proceed in the same manner as it would be in the IBP, the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court.

Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the latter a report containing his findings of fact and recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.¹³

Section 13 of Rule 139-B has been, as aforesaid, subsequently amended by Bar Matter No. 1645.¹⁴

How to file a disbarment or an administrative case against a lawyer before the Commission on Bar Discipline?

Proceedings for disbarment or any administrative case against a lawyer may be filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline by submitting six (6) copies of a verified complaint to the same.

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. (Section 1, Rule 139-B)

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.¹⁵

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.¹⁶

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.¹⁶

Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of court.¹⁶

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.¹⁶

What are the only pleadings required to be filed before the commission on bar discipline?

The only pleadings required to be filed before the Commission on Bar Discipline are those verified complaint, verified answer and verified position papers as provided in the Court’s Resolution issued on February 12, 2008 amending Sec. 1, Rule III of Rule 139- B.

Pursuant to the February 12, 2008 Resolution, a party cannot file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution with the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD hearing the case.

In the Resolution dated July 31, 2006 in A.C. No. 7055 entitled Ramientas v. Reyala,¹⁷ the Court held that:¹⁸

IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE ABOVE, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved the accordance with our ruling in Halimao v. Villanueva, pertinent provisions of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, as contained in the By-Laws of the IBP, particularly §1 and §2, are hereby deemed amended. Accordingly, §1 of said rules now reads as follows:¹⁹

SECTION 1. Pleadings. – The only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer, verified position paper and motion for reconsideration of resolution. x x x¹⁹

And in §2, a motion for reconsideration is, thus, removed from the purview of the class of prohibited pleadings.¹⁹

Further, the following guidelines shall be observed by the IBP in respect of disciplinary cases against lawyers:¹⁹

1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution containing its findings and recommendations within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt by the parties thereon;¹⁹

2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating to this Court the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;¹⁹

3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the period provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith transmit to this Court, for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole record of the case;¹⁹

4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may file a petition for review before this Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed; and¹⁹

5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where there exist pending motions for reconsideration filed in due time before the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable dispatch.¹⁹

Can you file a Motion for Reconsideration on the resolution of the Commission on Bar Discipline?

Pursuant to the Court’s Resolution issued on February 12, 2008 amending Sec. 1, Rule III of Rule 139-B. a party cannot file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution with the Investigating Commissioner of the Commission on Bar Discipline hearing the case. Hence:

In view of the February 12, 2008 Resolution, the fallo of Ramientas amending Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD is consequently repealed. At present, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading in CBD proceedings before the Investigating Commissioner. It has to be clarified further that said CBD rules of procedure apply exclusively to proceedings before said CBD Commissioner and not proceedings before the IBP Board of Governors (BOG) which are governed by Sec. 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. As such, the other dispositions in Ramientas relative to the filing of a motion for reconsideration before the IPB BOG are still valid and subsisting. In fact, Ramientas has amplified the rules laid down in Rule 139-B by supplying the procedure for the filing of motions for reconsiderations before the BOG.²⁰

Nevertheless, an aggrieved party can file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision or Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors [BOG] after its review of the findings of the assigned investigator during the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline. Thus:

1. On the amendment to Secs. 1 and 2 of Rule III of the CBD Rules of Procedure, the fallo in Ramientas is repealed and superseded by the February 12, 2008 Resolution. 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.¹⁹

2. Regarding the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration of a decision or resolution of the 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.¹⁹

After the investigation and resolution of the Commission on Bar Discipline, what will happen to the case?

After the investigation and resolution of the Commission on Bar Discipline, the IBP shall review the recommendation of the assigned investigator. Thus:

a) 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.²⁰

b) 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.¹⁹

c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated²¹ unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise.¹⁹

d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.¹⁹

How long should the Commission on Bar Discipline hear the case against a lawyer?

The Commission on Bar Discipline, through the assigned 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.²²

Afterwards, 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.¹⁶

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.¹⁶

After its review, the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, shall recommend to the Supreme Court the dismissal of the complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the respondent. The Board shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the reasons on which it is based. The resolution shall be issued within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submission of the Investigator’s report.²³

Previously, before Bar Matter No. 1645, under the then Section 12 of Rule 139-B, the IBP has the authority decide on the exoneration of the respondent, through the dismissal of the complaint, if found unmeritorious. Thus:

If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme Court orders otherwise. ²⁴

However, under Bar Matter [BM] No. 1645, such authority has been divested from the IBP. The “whereas” clause of  BM 1645 reads as follows:

“Whereas, dismissal of complaints filed against lawyers is a power of the Supreme Court that cannot be delegated to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.“²⁵

What are the prohibited pleadings in this kind of proceedings? Why are they prohibited?

Section 2, Rule III of B.M. No. 1755 provides that the following pleadings shall not be allowed, to wit:

1. Motion to dismiss the complaint or petition;
2. Motion for a bill of particulars;
3. Motion for a new trial;
4. Petition for relief from judgment;
5. Motion for reconsideration; and
6. Supplemental pleadings.

The prohibition of the filing of a motion for reconsideration has been found to be in conflict with Section 1, Rule III of B.M. No 1755, which provides that “the only pleadings allowed are verified complaint, verified answer and verified position papers and motion for reconsideration of a resolution.”

The Court resolved such matter through a Resolution issued on February 12, 2008. According to the February 12, 2008 Resolution, a party cannot file a motion for reconsideration of any order or resolution with the Investigating Commissioner of the CBD hearing the case.

Consequently, while motion for reconsideration is already not a prohibited pleading, still, it can only be filed after receipt of the unfavorable decision or resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and not the receipt of the resolution of the Investigating Commission of the Commission on Bar Discipline as to his recommendations.

The Pleadings above are prohibited because the filing thereof can cause delays in the resolution of the case or complaint against a lawyer that must be proceeded and resolved with dispatch.

After the termination of the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline, which body will take cognizance of the case against the lawyer?

The assigned investigator, after his evaluation, shall submit his or her report and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors [BOG]. Afterwards, the latter shall take cognizance of the case and shall review the findings of the assigned investigator during the proceedings before the Commission on Bar Discipline over which the assigned investigator presided.

Hence, it can be summarized as follows, even at the risk of being repetitious, to wit:

Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.

It is required that the person instituting the said proceeding shall file six copies of the verified complaint with the Secretary of the IBP or Secretary of any of its chapter and shall be forwarded to the IBP Board of Governors.

The complaint must allege specific acts which constitute particular breaches of the law, the CPR, or ethics. Otherwise, the complaint must fail.

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

Investigation must be made by the National Grievance Investigators within 3 months. After such, the said investigators will submit an investigative report to the IBP Board of Governors, who will review and decide the matter within thirty days.

Later on, the Board will transmit its decision to the Supreme Court within 10 days from resolution. The Supreme Court will take cognizance of the case by reviewing the judgment and subsequently rendering the final decision for disbarment, suspension, or dismissal of the erring lawyer.

When the IBP Board of Governors takes over the case of the lawyer from the Commission on Bar Discipline, how long should the former decide on the lawyer’s case?

When a case has been heard by an investigator under the Commission on Bar Discipline, the same shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors. The latter shall provide a resolution based upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator, together with the latter’s report.

The IBP Board of Governors shall then decide on the case within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the submittal of the Investigator’s report. Such decision must be in writing, and must clearly and distinctly provide for the facts and rationale behind such decision.²⁶

In finding liability against the lawyer, what sanctions can the IBP Board of Governors render against the erring lawyers?

Subject to the final review of the Supreme Court, the IBP Board of Governors may impose upon an erring lawyer the following disciplinary measures once proven that he or she is liable.

1. Fine;
2. Admonition;
3. Reprimand;
4. Suspension, that is a temporary withholding of a lawyer’s right to practice his profession as a lawyer for a definite period or for an indefinite period, amounting to qualified disbarment, in which case, the lawyer determines for himself for how long or how short his suspension shall last by proving to court that he is once again fit to resume practice of law.
5. Censure;
6. Disbarment, wherein the Supreme Court of the Philippines withdraws a lawyer from the privilege to practice law by striking out the his or her name from the roll of attorneys; and
7. Probation, wherein the lawyer is allowed to practice law under certain

How should the lawyer appeal his case from the decision of the IBP Board of Governors?

The aggrieved party, as mentioned, can file a Motion before the IBP Board of Governors seeking the reconsideration of the body’s Decision or Resolution, within fifteen (15) from notice thereof.

In all cases and pursuant to Bar Matter No. 1645, resolutions of the IBP BOG shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action.

The aggrieved party, nevertheless, may Petition for Review (Rule 45 of the Rules of Court) with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution. Once the petition is received by the Supreme Court, it shall rule on the matter, as provided under Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rule of Court.²⁷

Here, the aggrieved party is initially presented with two (2) remedies. Either, he may file a motion for reconsideration before the IBP Board of Governors or seek the authority of the Supreme Court through the filing of Petition for Review. Both remedies should be exercised within fifteen (15) days from notice of the IBP Decision.

At what point after the decision of the IBP Board of Governors can the Supreme Court take cognizance of the case and by what mode?

In all cases, including IBP cases, the Supreme Court shall take cognizance of a decision of the IBP Board:

1. Mandatory review – If the Board recommends to suspend or disbar the respondent from the practice of law [Sec. 12 (b), Rule 139-B before Bar Matter No. 1645]; and

2. Review by way of appeal – if the Board gave a disciplinary sanction, through its recommendation, which is less than suspension or disbarment [Sec. 12 (c), Rule 139-B before Bar Matter No. 1645].
3. Now, all IBP Resolutions shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action [Bar Matter No. 1645].

On the first instance, the rules provide that the IBP Board is mandated to transmit its resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, together with the whole record of the case, to the Supreme Court for final action.

On the second instance [before Bar Matter No. 1645] the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the case in the event that the respondent files an appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of Board’s resolution. In this regard, a party desiring to appeal the resolution of the IBP Board should file a Petition for Review before the Supreme Court (Supra., Bar Matter No. 1755, June 17, 2008).

What is the role of the Office of the Bar Confidant the proceedings against the lawyer?

It is the office of the Supreme Court that has custody of the Bar records and personal records of lawyers. It assists the Supreme Court in disciplining the Bar by investigating complaints against lawyers and Bar candidates ²⁸.

Recently, in a Resolution dated 2 March 2021, the Supreme Court clarified that it is the Office of the Bar Confidant or any fact-finding body the Court so designates which verifies the details and the authenticity of the statements and the evidence in a Petition for Judicial Clemency and Compassion.²⁹

Can the Regional Trial Court (RTC) suspend a lawyer?

The Regional Trial Court is given authority under the rules to suspend an attorney from practice of law based on the causes named under section 27 of Rule 138.

However, the rules also provide that the RTC shall transmit to the Supreme Court the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was based.

After which, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant. ³⁰

Final Thoughts

There are plethora of jurisprudence involving the practice of law. It is best fitting to quote these case-laws as a final thought in an attempt to impart the Supreme Courts never ending love for the practice of law and never tiring vigilance against abuse:

“Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar examinations.” ³¹

“Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession.” ³²

“Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.” ³³

1. Tan vs. Alvarico, A.C. No. 10933, November 03, 2020[↩]
2. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
3. Infra.[↩]
4. Bar Matter No. 1645, Amendment of Rule 139-B[↩]
5. Bar Matter No. 1755, July 17, 2008[↩]
6. RA 6397[↩]
7. PD No. 181[↩]
8. A. C. No. 6486, September 22, 2004[↩]
9. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
10. Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
11. Id.[↩]
12. Id.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
13. Section 13 and 14 of Rule 139-B, providing the Rules on the Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys[↩]
14. Supra., Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
15. Section 8, Rule 139-B[↩]
16. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
17. A. C. No. 7055, July 31, 2006[↩]
18. Supra., Bar Matter No. 1755[↩]
19. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
20. Supra., Bar Matter No. 1755[↩][↩]
21. This has been superseded by Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
22. Section 8, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court[↩]
23. Section 12, Rule 139-B, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
24. Section 12, Rule 139-B[↩]
25. Supra., Whereas Clause, Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
26. Supra., Section 12, Rule 139-B, as amended by Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
27. This may have been superseded by Bar Matter No. 1645[↩]
28. Sec. 4 (n), A. M. No. 17-03-09-SC[↩]
29. SC Sets New Guidelines in Petitions for Judicial Clemency, July 13, 2021[↩]
30. Sections 16 and 17, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court[↩]
31. Aguirre vs. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003[↩]
32. Yap vs. Buri, A. C. No.11156, March 19, 2018[↩]
33. B. M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007[↩]