GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAWYERS

Group 13: Abigail Aman and Michelle Vasquez
16.
INSTANCES OF MALPRACTICE AND GROSS
MISCONDUCT
17.
1. Failure of a lawyer to appeal in allowing
the period of appeal to lapse (Toquib vs.
Tomol, Jr., Adm. Case No. 554, January 3,
1969; Abiero vs. Juanino, 452 SCRA 1;
Cheng vs. Agravante, 426 SCRA 42).
2. Failure of a lawyer to submit his client's
brief within the reglementary period
(Villaflores vs. Limos, 538 SCRA 140)
3. Preparation and notarization of immoral
contracts or agreements (In re: Atty.
Bucana, 72 SCRA 14)
3.a Notarizing a forged document
(Alitagtag vs. Garcia, 376 SCRA 162)
4. Preparation by a notary public of a false
affidavit (Vda. De Guerrero vs. Hernando,
68 SCRA 76)
5. Solicitation of cases either directly or
indirectly through paid agents or brokers
(Tan vs. David, 126 SCRA 389; Rule 138,
Sec. 27, Rules of Court)
6. Abandonment of a client's case (Mago vs.
Bote, 156 SCRA 144)
7. Delay in the filing of a client's case (In re:
Carmen, 41 Phil. 899).
8. Notary public, who makes it appear in the
jurat of a contract that an affiant exhibited
to him his residence certificate when in fact
he did not do so (Vda. De Guerrero vs.
Hernando, 68 SCRA 76); Notarizing a
document without the affiant's presence
(Gonzales vs. Ramos, 460 SCRA 352)
9. Acknowledging a special power of attorney
in the absence of one of the parties (Lara
vs. Baretto, 127 SCRA 480)
10. Compromising a client's case without
authority ( Gonzales vs. Parrenas, 94 SCRA
48);
11. Notarizing documents after the lawyer's
commission as notary public had expired
(Soreta vs. Simpliciano, 443 SCRA 1);
notarizing a deed of sale where the sellers
could not have signed because they long
passed away (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA
248)
12. Representing
conflicting
interests
(Quiambao vs. Bamba, 468 1).
13. Encroaching upon the business of another
lawyer (Laput vs. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45)
14. Advertisement of a lawyer's skill in a
newspaper or publication (Director of
Religious Affairs vs. Bayot, 74 Phil. 579)
15. Cooperating in illegal practice of law such

18.
19.

20.
21.
22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.
28.

29.

30.

31.

as the formation of a partnership with

layman ( Beltran Jr. vs. Abad 132 SCRA
452)
Conversion of client's money to his
(lawyer's) own benefit ( Sipin-Nabor vs.
Baterina 260 SCRA 6)
Gross negligence (Arambulo vs. CA, 226
SCRA 589)
Notarizing one's own affidavit.
Intimidating a client by a display of a
revolver (Vda. De Barrera vs. Laput, 26
SCRA 44).
Failure to pay a fine imposed for failure to
file a brief (In re: Dianala Jo, 1 SCRA 31).
Refusal to pay IBP dues (In re: Maquera,
435 417)
Practicing law despite the lawyer's
suspension even if he refrained from using
the word attorney (De Leon vs. Torres,
Adm. Case No. 180, June 30, 1956)
Lack of fidelity, care and devotion to the
cause of the client (Vda. De Alisbo vs.
Jalandoon, Sr., 199 SCRA 321)
Attempting to mislead the Supreme Court
by raising issues long laid to rest by final
and executory judgment (Limpin, Jr. vs.
IAC, 161 SCRA 83)
Unwarranted obstinacy in evading payment
of debt ( Yuson vs. Vitan, 296 SCRA 540)
Acquiring for himself the lots of his client
which were entrusted to him (Hernandez,
Jr. vs. Go, 450 SCRA 1)
Offering false testimony (Ting-Dumali vs.
Torres, 427 SCRA 108)
Downloading by Atty. De Guzman of the
Bar Examination questions from Atty.
Balgo's computer without the knowledge of
the latter (Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, 421
SCRA 703)
Issuance of bouncing checks (Agno vs.
Atty. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14,
2008).
Advising client to sign an ante-dated deed
of sale to avaoid capital gains taxes (Chua
vs. Mesina, 436 SCRA 149).
Disregarding orders of the IBP-CBD
(Santeco vs. Avance, 418 SCRA 6).

The following are circumstances or

examples of gross immorality and their resulting
consequences as punishment as imposed by the
court: (Garrido v. Garrido, A.C. No. 6593, February
4, 2010)
a. Seducing the niece of a married woman
With whom the erring lawyer had adulterous
relationship with was disbarred by the
Supreme Court in the case of Royong v.
Oblena.

b. A lawyer continuing and engaging into an

adulterous relationship with the wife of his
son after the lawyer had previously
committed illicit relationship with his sons
wife even before the lawyers son was
married to his wife, was disbarred in the
case of Mortel v. Aspiras.
c. A lawyer maintained an adulterous
relationship with a woman who is already
married was suspended indefinitely in the
case of Cordova v. Cordova, but in the case
of Guevarra v. Eala, the lawyer was
disbarred.
d. Abandonment of wife and cohabiting with
another woman, disbarred as shown in the
case of Toledo v. Toledo.
e. Bigamy committed by the lawyer was
disqualified from admission to the Bar in the
case Villasanta v. Peralta, while in the case
of Terre v. Terre, the penalty was
disbarment, and finally, on the Mijares v.
Villaluz case, the penalty given was
suspension.
f. In the case of Delos Reyes v. Aznar, a
lawyer took advantage of his high position
and high authority in the college of medicine
where he was employed when he asked a
female student to go with him outside their
town in which he had carnal knowledge of
her under the condition that if she would
allow the sexual intercourse, she would pass
the subject where she failed, the lawyer was
disbarred.
g. A lawyer was disbarred in the case of
Cabrera v. Agustin, when the lawyer tricked
the woman in order to have carnal
knowledge with her, when he said that they
are already legally married.
h. A lawyer who promised marriage to a
woman in order to have carnal knowledge
which he did not fulfill was disbarred. In the
case of Quingwa v. Puno.
i. A lawyer having a concubine and failing to
support his children was indefinitely
suspended by the Supreme Court in the case
of Laguitan v. Tinio.
j. Disbarment proceeding is warranted against
a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and
maintains an illicit relationship with another
woman
(Bustamante-Alejandro
vs.
Alejandro, 433 SCRA 527

Proceedings in the IBP

Proceedings in the Supreme Court

Proceedings initiated motu proprio by the
Supreme Court may be referred by the Supreme
Court 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 in the IBP.