Lawyer's Disbarment Does Not Erase Liability for Prior Misconduct: A.C. No. 11508

The Supreme Court, in Oncines v. Causing (A.C. No. 11508, June 10, 2026), ruled that a lawyer who has already been disbarred can still be penalized for misconduct committed before the disbarment. The Court imposed fines totaling PHP 155,000 on Atty. Berteni C. Causing for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), even though he had already been disbarred in earlier cases. The decision clarifies an important point in legal ethics: disbarment does not erase a lawyer's liability for prior wrongdoing.

The Facts of the Case

The case began when Bernadette C. Oncines, a Court Legal Researcher at the Regional Trial Court in Butuan City, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Causing. At the time, Atty. Causing was counsel for a party in a land registration case pending before the same court.

In 2014, Oncines, then serving as officer-in-charge of the branch clerk of court, issued a certification about a parcel of land subject of the case. In June 2016, Atty. Causing arrived at the court and angrily shouted at Oncines, demanding that she retract the certification. He threatened to file an administrative case against her and insisted she be dismissed from service. He later endorsed an administrative complaint against her filed by his client.

Oncines alleged that Atty. Causing promoted a malicious and unfounded suit against her and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a lawyer.

The Issue

The central question was whether Atty. Causing violated the CPRA—specifically, his duty to maintain respect toward the courts and their personnel, and his obligation not to promote groundless suits.

The Ruling

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

First, he violated Canon II, Section 2 (dignified conduct) for angrily shouting at a court employee and demanding she retract an official certification. The Court noted that a lawyer's duty to maintain a respectful attitude toward the courts is not for the sake of the judge, but for the maintenance of the court's supreme importance. Atty. Causing also made baseless accusations of partiality and malice against the presiding judge in his pleadings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Second, he violated Canon III, Section 2 (responsible and accountable lawyer) for willfully disobeying the lawful directives of the IBP, including failing to file his position paper and attend the mandatory conference.

However, the Court found no substantial evidence that Atty. Causing promoted a groundless or baseless suit against Oncines. While he supported his client's administrative complaint, the evidence did not clearly prove malicious purpose.

Penalty Despite Prior Disbarment

The Court noted that Atty. Causing had been suspended in Velasco v. Causing (2021) and disbarred in Lao v. Causing (2022) and Hidalgo v. Causing (2025). Since he was already disbarred, the Court could no longer impose suspension or disbarment. Instead, it imposed fines:

• PHP 120,000 for failure to maintain respect toward the Court
• PHP 35,000 for willful noncompliance with IBP directives

The Court emphasized that it retains jurisdiction over offenses committed while the lawyer was still a member of the profession. The fines serve to record the penalties in the lawyer's file with the Office of the Bar Confidant, which may be considered should the disbarred lawyer seek reinstatement.

Practical Takeaways

• Disbarment is not a shield. A lawyer who has been disbarred can still be fined for misconduct committed before the disbarment. The Court retains jurisdiction over prior offenses.
• Respect for courts is non-negotiable. Lawyers must maintain a respectful attitude toward courts and their personnel. Shouting at court employees or making baseless accusations against judges violates the CPRA.
• Comply with IBP directives. Failure to file required pleadings or attend conferences before the IBP constitutes willful disobedience of lawful orders, a separate ethical violation.
• The standard of proof is substantial evidence. In disbarment cases, complainants must prove their allegations with substantial evidence—not mere assumptions or suspicions.
• Fines can be imposed on disbarred lawyers. Under the CPRA, the Court may impose a fine when a disbarred lawyer is subsequently found guilty of a new charge.

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