Lawyerly

AC. No. 7297

2009-09-29

IMELDA BIDES-ULASO v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA

BERSAMIN, J.

The agreement between Bides and Ulaso stipulating the withdrawal of the disbarment case against the respondent did not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue the present administrative proceeding against the respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar. We explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[18] viz: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. xxx. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. xxx.

AC. No. 4515

2008-07-14

CECILIA A. AGNO v. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The rationale was explained by us in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[27] viz :[The] rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. (Word in brackets ours)

AC. No. 3731

2007-09-07

MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR

CARPIO, J.

Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis[51] and they belong to a class of their own.[52] They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer.[53] They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.[54]

AC. NO. 5542

2006-07-20

DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. NAPOLEON A. ESPIRITU

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.[20] 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 admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[21] Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically, and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[22]

AC. NO. 4676

2006-05-04

SPS. ANTONIO AND NORMA SORIANO v. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.[16] What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.[17] Accordingly, notwithstanding the motion to withdraw evidence and testimony, the disbarment proceeding should proceed.

AC. NO. 6963

2006-02-09

VICTORINA BAUTISTA v. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Complainant's desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[16]

AC. NO. 2474

2005-06-30

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA

PER CURIAM

Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only question for determination is whether respondent is fit to be a member of the Bar. The complainant or the person who called the attention of this Court to the lawyer's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[13] Thus, this Court may investigate charges against lawyers, regardless of complainant's standing. In fact, it can do so motu proprio. Our ruling in Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos[14] applies four-square, thus:"x x x A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges."

AC. NO. 4018

2005-03-08

OMAR P. ALI v. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG

PER CURIAM

As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant's daughter, requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."[37] As we have previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:[38]

AC. NO. 1526

2005-01-31

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO

PER CURIAM

In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[11] we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money and later refused to return the same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses III,[12] we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal or failure to account for the P50,000.00 he received from a client to settle a case. In Docena vs. Limson,[13] we expelled from the brotherhood of lawyers, an attorney who extorted money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation. In Busiños vs. Ricafort,[14] an attorney was stripped of his license to practice law for misappropriating his client's money.

AC. No. 4585

2004-11-12

MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ

PER CURIAM

The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. As respondent himself admits, the practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is "to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence."[31] "A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. 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 the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them."[32] "Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court."[33]

Adm. Case No. 6290

2004-07-14

ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA v. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[16] we declared: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment case should proceed accordingly.

AC. No. 1558

2003-03-10

HONORIO MANALANG v. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES

QUISUMBING, J.

We note that in 1976 at the hearings before the OSG, complainant Manalang declared he was already 58 years old,[25] while complainant Cirillo stated that he was 64 years of age.[26] A quarter of century has since passed. It is true that a disciplinary action involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance, since it is undertaken solely for the public welfare, and the attorney-at-law is called to task mainly to answer to this Court for his conduct as an officer of the court.[27] Nevertheless, we must stress that disciplinary action against a member of the bar involves the public interest, and it should be resolved with dispatch.[28] Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the instant case were poor working men. They were made to wait long for their money, by their very own counsel, contrary to the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is contrary to all ethical principles that members of the bar are supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension. However, this is the first case on record against him, a fact which could be taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months suspension appears to us in order.

	AC. No. 7297 2009-09-29	IMELDA BIDES-ULASO v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA BERSAMIN, J.
The agreement between Bides and Ulaso stipulating the withdrawal of the disbarment case against the respondent did not terminate or abate the jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to continue the present administrative proceeding against the respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar. We explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[18] viz: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. xxx. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. xxx.
	AC. No. 4515 2008-07-14	CECILIA A. AGNO v. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The rationale was explained by us in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[27] viz :[The] rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. (Word in brackets ours)
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis[51] and they belong to a class of their own.[52] They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer.[53] They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.[54]
	AC. NO. 5542 2006-07-20	DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. NAPOLEON A. ESPIRITU CALLEJO, SR., J.
The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.[20] 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 admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[21] Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically, and, equally important, morally. Because they are vanguards of the law and the legal system, lawyers must at all times conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[22]
	AC. NO. 4676 2006-05-04	SPS. ANTONIO AND NORMA SORIANO v. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.[16] What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges.[17] Accordingly, notwithstanding the motion to withdraw evidence and testimony, the disbarment proceeding should proceed.
	AC. NO. 6963 2006-02-09	VICTORINA BAUTISTA v. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Complainant's desistance or withdrawal of the complaint does not exonerate respondent or put an end to the administrative proceedings. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[16]
	AC. NO. 2474 2005-06-30	EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA PER CURIAM
Disbarment proceedings are undertaken solely for public welfare. The only question for determination is whether respondent is fit to be a member of the Bar. The complainant or the person who called the attention of this Court to the lawyer's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party and generally has no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[13] Thus, this Court may investigate charges against lawyers, regardless of complainant's standing. In fact, it can do so motu proprio. Our ruling in Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos[14] applies four-square, thus:"x x x A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges."
	AC. NO. 4018 2005-03-08	OMAR P. ALI v. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG PER CURIAM
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant's daughter, requesting for the withdrawal of this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be "interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."[37] As we have previously explained in the case of Irene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty. Orlando A. Rayos:[38]
	AC. NO. 1526 2005-01-31	NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO PER CURIAM
In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[11] we ordered the disbarment of lawyer when he deceived his 85-year old aunt into entrusting him with all her money and later refused to return the same despite demand. In Navarro vs. Meneses III,[12] we disbarred a member of the Bar for his refusal or failure to account for the P50,000.00 he received from a client to settle a case. In Docena vs. Limson,[13] we expelled from the brotherhood of lawyers, an attorney who extorted money from his client through deceit and misrepresentation. In Busiños vs. Ricafort,[14] an attorney was stripped of his license to practice law for misappropriating his client's money.
	AC. No. 4585 2004-11-12	MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
The argument of respondent that to disbar him now is tantamount to a deprivation of property without due process of law is also untenable. As respondent himself admits, the practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is "to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence."[31] "A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. 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 the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice them."[32] "Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court."[33]
	Adm. Case No. 6290 2004-07-14	ANA MARIE CAMBALIZA v. ATTY. ANA LUZ B. CRISTAL-TENORIO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
At the outset, we find that the IBP was correct in not acting on the Motion to Withdraw Complaint filed by complainant Cambaliza. In Rayos-Ombac vs. Rayos,[16] we declared: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment 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 and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges. Hence, notwithstanding the Motion to Withdraw Complaint, this disbarment case should proceed accordingly.
	AC. No. 1558 2003-03-10	HONORIO MANALANG v. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES QUISUMBING, J.
We note that in 1976 at the hearings before the OSG, complainant Manalang declared he was already 58 years old,[25] while complainant Cirillo stated that he was 64 years of age.[26] A quarter of century has since passed. It is true that a disciplinary action involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance, since it is undertaken solely for the public welfare, and the attorney-at-law is called to task mainly to answer to this Court for his conduct as an officer of the court.[27] Nevertheless, we must stress that disciplinary action against a member of the bar involves the public interest, and it should be resolved with dispatch.[28] Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the instant case were poor working men. They were made to wait long for their money, by their very own counsel, contrary to the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is contrary to all ethical principles that members of the bar are supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension. However, this is the first case on record against him, a fact which could be taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months suspension appears to us in order.

IRENE RAYOS-OMBAC v. ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS