Disbarment in the Philippines: When Lawyers Betray Public Trust and Client Funds

The Supreme Court has long held that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and lawyers must uphold the highest standards of integrity, respect, and accountability. In a recent En Banc decision, the Court addressed the case of a lawyer who, despite prior suspensions and eventual disbarment, continued to face administrative liability for misconduct committed while still a member of the Bar. The case serves as a stern reminder that a lawyer's ethical obligations do not end with disbarment—and that the Court retains jurisdiction to discipline errant counsel for offenses committed before their removal from the rolls.

The Case: Oncines v. Atty. Causing (A.C. No. 11508, June 10, 2026)

The complainant, Bernadette C. Oncines, was a Court Legal Researcher II and former Officer-in-Charge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City. In 2014, she issued a Certification regarding a parcel of land subject of a cadastral case. Two years later, Atty. Berteni C. Causing, counsel for a party in that case, confronted Oncines at the courthouse. He angrily shouted at her, demanded she retract the Certification, and threatened to file an administrative case against her if she refused.

Atty. Causing later endorsed his client's administrative complaint against Oncines to the Court. Oncines then filed the present disbarment complaint, alleging that Atty. Causing had promoted a malicious suit and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), which took effect on May 29, 2023, and applies to all pending and future cases.

The Ruling: Guilty of Disrespect and Disobedience

The Court found Atty. Causing guilty of two distinct violations under the CPRA.

First, he violated Canon II, Section 2 (Dignified Conduct), which requires lawyers to respect the law, the courts, and their officials and employees, and to act with courtesy, civility, fairness, and candor. The Court emphasized that a lawyer's duty to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts is not for the sake of the judge personally, but for the maintenance of the judiciary's supreme importance. Atty. Causing's angry outburst at Oncines, his baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge, and his slanderous statements about a judge in other proceedings all demonstrated a lack of reverence for the courts. As the Court noted, a lawyer's right to criticize judges does not constitute an unbridled license to malign and insult the court and its officers.

Second, he violated Canon III, Section 2 (The Responsible and Accountable Lawyer) for willful disobedience of lawful orders. Atty. Causing repeatedly failed to comply with directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), including submitting his position paper and attending mandatory conferences. The Court stressed that directives from the IBP, as the Court's investigating arm, are not mere requests but lawful orders that must be complied with promptly and completely.

However, the Court found insufficient evidence to hold Atty. Causing liable for promoting a groundless or baseless suit against Oncines. While his statements suggested support for the filing of the administrative complaint, they did not clearly prove malicious purpose.

Penalty: Fines Despite Prior Disbarment

A notable aspect of this case is the penalty. Atty. Causing had already been disbarred in 2022 in Lao v. Atty. Causing and again in 2025 in Hidalgo v. Atty. Causing, and suspended in Velasco v. Atty. Causing. The Court explained that once a lawyer is disbarred, no further penalty can be imposed regarding the privilege to practice law. Nevertheless, the Court retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while the lawyer was still a member of the Bar.

The Court imposed an aggregate fine of PHP 155,000.00: PHP 120,000.00 for the violation of Canon II, Section 2, and PHP 35,000.00 for the violation of Canon III, Section 2. The fines were imposed for the purpose of recording the penalties in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be considered should he ever petition for reinstatement. The Court reiterated his continuing disbarment.

Practical Takeaways

• Respect for the courts is non-negotiable. Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward judges and court personnel, even when passionately defending a client's cause. Intemperate language and baseless imputations of bias or malice against a judge are serious ethical violations.
• Obey orders from the IBP and the Court. Directives in administrative proceedings are lawful orders. Willful noncompliance—such as failing to file required pleadings or attend conferences—constitutes disobedience and is itself a separate offense.
• The CPRA now governs disciplinary cases. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which took effect on May 29, 2023, applies to pending and future cases and codifies the ethical standards for lawyers.
• Disbarment is not a shield from further discipline. The Court can still impose fines and record penalties against a disbarred lawyer for misconduct committed before disbarment, and these will be considered in any future reinstatement petition.
• Substantial evidence is the standard. In disbarment cases, the complainant must prove allegations by substantial evidence. General denials and unsupported accusations from the respondent will not suffice.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.