View full case

FIDELA BENGCO v. ATTY. PABLO S. BERNARDO

FACTS:

Fidela G. Bengco and Teresita N. Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo Bernardo for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of his duties and oath as a lawyer. The complainants claimed that Atty. Bernardo, along with Andres Magat, committed fraudulent acts between April and July 1997. Atty. Bernardo allegedly deceived the complainants into financing him with P495,000.00, promising to expedite the titling of a land owned by the Miranda family. He pretended to be the lawyer of a prospective buyer, William Gatchalian, and claimed to have contracts with government agencies. However, Atty. Bernardo misappropriated the money for personal gain. The complainants filed a complaint for estafa against Atty. Bernardo and Magat, which led to probable cause findings. The case was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. Atty. Bernardo failed to answer the complaint or attend the scheduled hearings despite several notices and extensions. The investigatory commissioner concluded that Atty. Bernardo committed deceit and violated his attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Although the alleged misconduct occurred in 1997, the complaint was only filed in 2004. Nonetheless, the Commission of Bar Discipline rules prescribe a six-year period for filing complaints for disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the complaint for disbarment is barred by prescription.

  2. Whether or not the respondent should be held liable for misconduct and violations of his attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  3. Whether or not the respondent should be meted out disciplinary sanction for his actions.

  4. Whether the respondent committed acts that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. Whether the respondent's criminal conviction for estafa affects his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar.

  6. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present petition.

  7. Whether the petitioners have a legal standing to file the present petition.

  8. Whether the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 violate the Constitution.

RULING:

  1. The defense of prescription is untenable. Administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe, and the lapse of considerable time from the commission of the offense to the filing of the complaint will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer.

  2. The respondent is held liable for misconduct and violations of his attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent committed deceit, unlawful acts, and acts of dishonesty in violation of his attorney's oath, which are grounds for suspension or disbarment.

  3. The respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. Failure to return the amount of money within sixty days will result in an additional penalty of suspension for one year.

  4. The Court found that the respondent committed acts that violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The respondent admitted that he solicited legal business and made false, misleading, and self-laudatory statements regarding his qualifications and legal services. This is in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  5. The respondent's criminal conviction for estafa clearly undermines his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. Rule 138, Section 27 provides that a member of the bar may be suspended or disbarred by the Supreme Court for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the respondent's conviction affects his moral fitness to practice law.

  6. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the present petition. The issues raised involve the constitutionality of a law enacted by Congress, which falls under the Court's power of judicial review.

  7. The petitioners have legal standing to file the present petition. They are citizens, organizations, and a senator who allege that their constitutional rights are violated or under threat of being violated by the provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

  8. The Court declares several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 as unconstitutional, while affirming the constitutionality of the other provisions. The Court ruled that the provisions on online libel, take down clause, and real-time collection of traffic data without a warrant are violative of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe.

  • Lawyers are duty-bound to obey and respect court processes.

  • Committing unlawful acts, particularly crimes involving moral turpitude, acts of dishonesty, grossly immoral conduct, and deceit, are grounds for suspension or disbarment.

  • Lawyers are expected to maintain a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.

  • The practice of law is a profession, not a business. Duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration.

  • A disbarment proceeding is separate from a criminal action, and a finding of guilt in the criminal case does not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case.

  • Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are undertaken for the public welfare and to preserve courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law.

  • A member of the bar may be suspended or disbarred for deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath required before admission to practice, or willful disobedience.

  • The Court has the power of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.

  • Legal standing requires that the petitioner must have a personal and substantial interest in the case and that there must be an actual or imminent violation of their legal rights.

  • The freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by the Constitution, protects and upholds the right of individuals to express their opinions and ideas without censorship or restraint.