Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

8. Yes, the judge may grant the motion.

Under Section 28 of Rule 138 and Section 16, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provide that the
Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice 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 lawyers oath, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so. The suspended attorney shall not practice his profession
until further action of the Supreme Court.

In the case of Heirs of the Late Faustina Borres vs. Abela (527 SCRA 633), the Supreme Court held that the
judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for suspension of the lawyer
because the judge acted pursuant to Section 28 of Rule 138 and Section 16, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court. The Supreme Court held that a Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice 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 lawyers oath, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without authority to do so.

Under Section 27, paragraph 8 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or suspended
on the ground of corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority to do so.
For an attorney's willful appearance as counsel of a party, without authority to do so, there is a valid
ground to impose disciplinary action against him (Vargas vs Ignes, A.C. No. 8096. July 5, 2010).

The Supreme Court also postulated in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Pamintuan
Development Co. (G.R. No. 167886. October 25, 2005) that "An attorney willfully appearing in court for a
person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer
of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions."

The case of Zoreta vs. Simpliciano (A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1) emphasizes the
causes of disbarment. The Supreme Court said that, "At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the
practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess
and continue to possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.
Membership in the bar is a privileged burdened with conditions. x x x An attorney may be disbarred or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties s an attorney and counselor, which include
statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being enough to
cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity."
In Que vs. Revilla (December 4, 2009) The Court held that the respondent violated Sections 21 and 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court when he undertook the unauthorized appearances. The settled rule is that
a lawyer may not represent a litigant without authority from the latter or from the latters representative
or, in the absence thereof, without leave of court. The willful unauthorized appearance by a lawyer for a
party in a given case constitutes contumacious conduct and also warrants disciplinary measures against
the erring lawyer for professional misconduct.
Moreover, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law.

If there is an Unauthorized Appearance, one of the effects especially if the unauthorized appearance is
willful, attorney may be cited for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions, and he may be disciplined for professional misconduct.

In this case, Atty. E willfully appeared as a lawyer for F to a case without authority from the latter to do so.
As a consequence thereof, by committing one of the grounds for suspension of a lawyer from the practice
of law, the RTC judge is justified in granting the motion for his suspension.

Вам также может понравиться