LAW
No specific mention was made as to what authority the power of JUDICIAL
CLEMENCY AND REINSTATEMENT. However, the Philippine Constitution provides a
broad power to the Supreme Court to Limit, Deny and even grant for the restoration of
the privilege of a member of the Bar to practice law.
Judicial Clemency is given to members of the bar, who seeks to be given compassion
by the Court to resume his or her previous status prior to suspension, or even
disbarrement. Here, there must be a showing of clear remorse of the petitioner of his
previous actions.
v. JURISPRUDENCE
a. JUDICIAL CLEMENCY Cases Involving Lawyers- JC Granted
In RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, 586 SCRA 373
(2009)
Atty. Danilo De Guzman was stripped his license to practice law for his alleged
involvment in the leakage in the 2003 Bar Examination. As a consequence of his dire
acts, he was later on disbarred.
Petitioner now seeks for Judicial Clemency and Reinstatement to the Bar.
Petitioner submits various endorsements from individuals and entities all
attesting to his good moral character. A total of 14 Open Letters, Testimonial Letters and
personal letters of certain distinguished individuals were included.
Citing In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that he be afforded the same
kindeness and compasssion in order that his future may not be perpetually foreclosed.
The Court was convinced that petitioner has since reformed and has sincerely
reflected on his transgressions. The penalty of disbarment may now be lifted and he be
allowed to practice of law.
The Court further ruled that while it is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its
erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has
already served its purpose.
Among the proof where the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the remorse
expected of him, the attestations submitted by his peers in the community and other
esteemed members of the legal profession, his subsequent track record in public
service. His achievements as a lawyer would redound to the general good and more
than mitigate the stain on his record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted.
Maccarubo vs. Maccarubo (424 SCRA 42) Re: Petition (For Extraordinary Mercy)
of Edmundo Macarubbo. (2013)
2.
Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a
period of reformation.
3.
The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself.
4.
5.
There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.
Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like any
other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good
moral character. (In re: Atty. Tranquillo Rovero, A.C. No. 126, December 29, 1980, 101
SCRA 799, 801)
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledge his indiscretion
in the legal profession and in his personal life. He asked forgiveness form his childern
and maintianed a cordial relationship with them as shown in attached pictures. Devoted
his time to his ailing mother. Appointed as Private Secretary to Mayor Enrile, Cagayan
and thereafter assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer. Took
active part in socio-civic activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire
need.
The Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency:
1) There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer/s or
chapter/s of the IBP, judges or judges associations and prominent members
of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of
guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give
rise to a strong presumptin of non-reformation.
2) Sufficent time must have lapsed form the impostion of the penalty to ensure a
period of reform.
3) The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.
4) There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning
or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of
the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as
potential for public service.
5) Ther must be other relevant factors and circumstance that may justify
clemency.
As applied to the case, Judge Diaz expressed sincere repentance for his past
malfeasance. He humbly accepted the verdict of this Court in Alvarez. Three years have
elapsed since the promulgation of Alvarez. It is sufficient to ensure that he has learned
his lesson and that he has reformed. His 12 years of service in the judiciary may be
taken as proof of his dedication to the institution.
The Court applied the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency laid down in
In re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz.
The Court found these standards satisfied in the present case based on the
following reasons:
First, Judge Lee in his letter expressed his deepest regrets and profound apologies to
the Court for his professional shortcomings.
Second, while only three (3) years have passed since the Court rendered the decision
in the case, Judge Lee showed his intent and the effects of his reformation within that
short period of time
Third, Judge Lee is only 51 years old and still has many productive years ahead of him
to render judicial service.
Fourth, Judge Lee has made substantial contributions to legal education.
Lastly, an exceptional catalytic factor that justifies the grant of clemency despite the
lapse of only three (3) years, is the remarkable courage and bravery Judge Lee
displayed during the floods of tropical storm Ondoy in 2009 when he rescued flood
victims in his neighborhood at the risk of his own life.
In Re: Emma J. Castillo vs. Judge Manuel M. Calanog, 239 SCRA 268 (1994)
The Court in its decision on July 12, 1991 found Judge Calanog guilty of immorality and
ordered dismissed from the service "with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment
to any public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation, and
forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any."
As proof of his moral regeneration, Atty. Calanog alleges that he has become active in
religious and civic activities. In support of his allegations, he has submitted testimonials.
Atty. Calanog is a relatively young man of 54. If his contributions during the four years
that he was an RTC judge were any measure of his potentiality for public service, he
has productive years still ahead of him which should not be foreclosed. The penalty of
disqualification from appointment to any public office should be lifted so that the
opportunity for public service in other fields may be opened to him.
In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo vs. Nograles
and Limkaichong, 580 SCRA 107 (2009)
Through six letters filed by Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes, he sought the benevolence
of the Court to lift his indefinite suspension from the practice of law and disqualification
to hold public office. The said sanctions were recommended because Justice Reyes
was found to have prematurely leaked the ponencia in G.R. No. 179120.
The Court found that Justice Reyes espousal of much regret and sincere apology for
the incident, his thirty-five years of service in the government prior to the suspension,
and considering his advanced age, satisfied the guidelines. However, the Court only
allowed Justice Reyes to return to private practice and chose not to lift the
suspension in holding of public office and he is also not allowed to teach law in
MCLE and to become a lecturer in the PHILJA.
The granting of these petitions still depends on the discretion of the Court,
notwithstanding the criteria and guidelines.
For as long as the Court is satisfied that a member of the bar or the bench suffering
from suspension, disbarment or any other disabilities has shown strong proofs of
What is Reinstatement?
Condition in reinstatement
The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the
Court that he is a person of good moral character a fit and proper person to
practice law.
Suspension
Suspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of law for a specified
minimum period of time. Generally, suspension should be for a period of time
equal to or greater than six months, but in no event should the time period
prior to application for reinstatement be more than three years. Procedures
should be established to allow a suspended lawyer to apply for
reinstatement, but a lawyer who has been suspended should not be
permitted to return to practice until he has completed a reinstatement
process demonstrating rehabilitation, compliance with all applicable discipline
or disability orders and rules, and fitness to practice law.
Suspension
The lifting of a lawyers suspension is not automatic upon the end of the
period stated in the Courts decision, and an order from the Court lifting the
suspension at the end of the period is necessary in order to enable [him] to
resume the practice of his profession. ( J.K. Mercado and Sons Agricultural
Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Atty. deVera, et al. and Atty. de Vera v. Atty.
Encanto, et al.)
Thus, according to the OBC, a suspended first present proof(s) of his
compliance by submitting certifications from the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and from the Executive Judge that he has indeed desisted from
the practice of law during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the Court,
after evaluation, and upon a favorable recommendation from the OBC, will
issue are solution lifting the order of suspension and thus allow him to
resume the practice of law. (Maniago v. Atty. De Dios, A.C. No. 7472,March 30,
2010)
1. After a finding that respondent lawyer must be suspended from the practice
of law, the Court shall render a decision imposing the penalty;
2. Unless the Court explicitly states that the decision is immediately executory
upon receipt thereof, respondent has 15 days within which to file a motion for
reconsideration thereof. The denial of said motion shall render the decision
final and executory;
3. Upon the expiration of the period of suspension, respondent shall file a Sworn
Statement with the Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, stating
there in that he or she has desisted from the practice of law and has not
appeared in any court during the period of his or her suspension;
4. Copies of the Sworn Statement shall be furnished to the Local Chapter of the
IBP and to the Executive Judge of the courts where respondent has pending
cases handled by him or her, and/or where he or she has appeared as
counsel;
5. The Sworn Statement shall be considered as proof of respondents
compliance with the order of suspension;
6. Any finding or report contrary to the statements made by the lawyer under
oath shall be a ground for the imposition of a more severe punishment, or
disbarment, as may be warranted.
Disbarment
Considerations in reinstatement
The court may require applicant for reinstatement to enroll in and pass
the required fourth year review classes in a recognized law school. (Cui
v. Cui, In Re:Resian A.C. No. 270, Mar. 1974)
Effects of reinstatement
An absolute pardon by the President is one that operates to wipe out the
conviction as well as the offense itself. The grant thereof to a lawyer is a bar
to a proceeding for disbarment against him, if such proceeding is based
solely on the fact of such conviction. (In re: Parcasio, A.C. No. 100,Feb. 18,
1976)
But where the proceeding to disbar is founded on the professional misconduct
involved in the transaction which culminated in his conviction, the effect of
the pardon is only to relieve him of the penal consequences of his act and
does not operate as a bar to the disbarment proceeding, inasmuch as the
criminal acts may nevertheless constitute proof that the attorney does not
possess good moral character. (In re: Lontok, 43Phil. 293, Apr. 7, 1922)
In the light of recent court pronouncements that a lawyer may be disciplined
even for non-professional misconduct, one may argue that a lawyer convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude, and subsequently receives absolute
pardon, may still be proceeded against under the Code of Professional
Responsibility even if the acts of which he was found guilty did not involve
professional misconduct (A modification of In ReLontok, supra).
The loss of Philippine citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice
law in the Philippines.
Filipino citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law, loss of
which means the termination of ones membership in the Bar and the
privilege to engage in the practice of law.
Lawyers who reacquire their Philippine citizenship should apply to the SC for
license or permit to practice their profession.
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country but later re-acquires
his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar
FACTS:
ISSUE:
May Dacanay be allowed to resume his privilege to practice law in the
Philippines after reacquiring Philippine citizenship?
HELD:
General Rule A lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship can no
longer practice law in the Philippines
No automatic right to resume law practice accrues. One must first secure
from the SC the authority to do so, conditioned on:
Although the term good moral character admits of broad dimensions, it has
been defined as including at least common honesty (Rayong vs. Oblena,
Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859; In Re Del Rosario, 52 Phil.
399 [1928]. It has also been held that no moral qualification for bar
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor (Fellner vs. Bar
Association of Baltimore City, 131 A 2d. 729).- [The Legal ProfessionA
Matter of Privilege, 330 SCRA 22()]
REHABILITATION
REHABILITATION
REHABILITATION
Conclusion