This month, the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) will mark its third anniversary. Since it became effective on May 30, 2023, the Supreme Court has decided about a hundred cases enforcing its provisions. Of these, around 80 ended in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, while the other 20 in dismissals for lack of merit, in judicial clemency, and in denial of requests.
TO KEEP UP WITH OUR CHANGING TIMES and the “… recent developments and technological trends which impact the experience and behavior of members of the Philippine Bar, mostly through social media and the internet,” the Court adopted the CPRA and replaced its circa 1988 predecessor, the Code of Professional Responsibility. Through the CPRA, the Court reasserted its constitutional authority (Section 5[5], Article VIII) to regulate not only admission to the practice of law but also the behavior and ethical conduct of lawyers.
My Dec. 4, 2023 column (“Duties of lawyers”) discussed the six CPRA canons that must guide the ethical compass of every lawyer: “Independence” (Canon I), “Propriety” (Canon II), “Fidelity” (Canon III), “Competence and Diligence” (Canon IV), “Equality” (Canon V), and “Accountability” (Canon VI).
Today, let me focus on the decisions that meted out penalties like disbarment and suspension from practicing law, revocation of notarial commissions, disqualification as a notary public, fines, or a combination of these penalties, depending on the gravity of the misconduct.
ACCORDINGLY, LET ME TAKE UP SOME CASES that impelled the Court to impose these sanctions. Recently, a lawyer was suspended for five years for violating her client’s trust and confidence via her repeated absences from court hearings, noncompliance with court directives, and dereliction of her obligations under Canon IV, requiring lawyers to serve their clients competently and diligently.
In another case, the Court fined a high government official for indirect contempt and “Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice” under Canon VI for publicly assailing the Court’s conflict-of-interest rule under the CPRA and issuing an office order that “effectively encouraged disobedience” to the rule, thereby violating her duty to observe and maintain the respect due to the Court and the laws under Canons II and III.
As a third example, one prominent practicing lawyer and academic was fined P100,000 for simple misconduct in violation of Canon II for sponsoring the travel of certain officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The Court found him to have “crossed the borders on excessive … propriety” that compromised the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the IBP.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is imposed for “any misconduct, whether in his [or her] professional or private capacity, which shows him [or her] to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.”
Moreover, the CPRA contains novel provisions (Sections 36 to 44 of Canon II) requiring the responsible use of social media. Thus, attorneys must “uphold the dignity of the legal profession in all social media interactions in a manner that enhances the people’s confidence in the legal system…”.
Accordingly, the Court condemned a lawyer for indirect contempt after he published a now-deleted Facebook post accusing the Court of judicial tyranny. Such baseless accusations subjected the tribunal to public ridicule and mockery, in violation of Canon II.
THE SC HAS ZERO TOLERANCE FOR DISHONESTY. A lawyer who submitted pleadings bearing a fake Mandatory Continuing Legal Education number was disbarred since his “… act of indicating patently false information in pleadings filed before the courts constitutes bad faith and dishonesty and shows blatant disrespect of the court and its rules.”
Lawyers are expected to protect their clients’ causes with utmost diligence and competence. Yet, some members of the bar have treated these obligations with alarming casualness.
One lawyer was disbarred for misappropriating over P60 million entrusted to him by his clients, thereby violating his duty under Canon III to assist in the administration of justice. Another was disbarred for violating Canons III and IV for habitually missing hearings, resulting in the waiver of his client’s right to cross-examine a witness and, ultimately, in the imposition of two counts of frustrated homicide.
The Court is mindful, however, that the power to disbar “must be exercised with great caution,” and its disciplinary authority covers only acts that may affect public confidence and does not extend to enforcing private rights unrelated to a lawyer’s duties.
The high tribunal’s intensified enforcement of the CPRA should not be mistaken as a campaign of fear. Rather, it is a determined effort to uphold and preserve society’s last bulwark of justice and democratic order.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com