Is disbarment automatic when a lawyer is found guilty for the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude?

No, the disbarment is not automatic. Under the Rules of Court (Rule 138 Section 27) ,it states that: Rule 138 Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. - A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. It is only a ground and the disbarment is not automatic because this is clear from the provision itself. Furthermore, under the Rules of Court (Rule 139-B) Disbarment and Discipline of attorneys It provides the procedure of the disbarment and discipline of attorneys. Due process must be observed, even lawyers are entitled to the right to be presumed innocent. Presumption of innocence exists in favor of the respondent lawyer just like in criminal proceedings the respondent is presumed innocent until otherwise proven guilty of the charge. Segovia vs Sardaa 74 SCRA 59 Held: In the absence of convincing proof of misconduct on the part of the respondent. As in this case where the complainants moved to dismiss the complaint for the lack of witnesses and failed not only to substantiate the charges but also to appear in thereof before the investigating Judge despite due notice to them and counsel. We find the recommendation of the Investigating Judge to dismiss the complaint to be meritorious. Well settled is the rule that an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges preferred against him until the contrary is proved. It is only when such presumption is overcome by convincing proof of the lawyers misconduct that the serious consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow. Burden of proof rest upon the complainant. in disbarment proceedings. The respondent lawyers enjoys the legal presumption of innocence which must be overcome

by clear preponderance of evidence before the lawyer would be meted the imposition of disbarment or suspension. The complainant has the burden of proof. In re: De Guzman 55 SCRA 139 Held: In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. To be made the basis for suspension or disbarment of a lawyer. The charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The record must disclose as free from doubt case which compels the exercise by this Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as well as the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated.