FACTS:

The case involves the disbarment proceedings against Atty. Emely Reyes Trinidad for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) based on a complaint filed by Maryanne Merriam B. Guevarra-Castil. The complaint alleges that Atty. Trinidad, who is reportedly having an extramarital affair with Maryanne's husband, Orlando L. Castil, Jr., insulted and demeaned Maryanne when she tried to stop the affair. Maryanne also discovered a birth certificate indicating that Atty. Trinidad and Orlando have a child together. Atty. Trinidad denied knowing Maryanne and asserted that the complaint against her is based on hearsay and illegally obtained evidence. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Trinidad guilty of gross immorality and recommended her disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation and approved her disbarment. Atty. Trinidad's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the issue of whether she should be disbarred.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over disciplinary cases involving government lawyers

2. When should the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction over erring government lawyers in disbarment cases?

3. Whether a disbarment proceeding against a government lawyer for acts committed in their capacity as a government employee should be filed directly before the Supreme Court.

4. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over complaints against government lawyers that do not seek to discipline them as members of the Bar.

5. Whether the Supreme Court can dismiss a complaint against a government lawyer and refer it to the appropriate government office or the Ombudsman for lack of jurisdiction.

6. Whether or not Atty. Trinidad's actions warrant the imposition of the penalty of disbarment.

7. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to resolve the present disbarment complaint.

8. Whether the respondent violated the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in disrespectful conduct towards the court.

9. Whether the respondent's act of writing an open letter criticizing the decision of the court constituted a ground for disbarment.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court generally defers from taking cognizance of disbarment complaints against lawyers in government service. Such complaints are referred to either the proper administrative body that has disciplinary authority over the erring government lawyer or the Ombudsman.

2. The Supreme Court should exercise jurisdiction over erring government lawyers in disbarment cases when their misconduct in the discharge of official duties constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath. However, if the violations committed by the government lawyers primarily involve their official duties and are not related to their being lawyers, the Court may choose to dismiss the disbarment cases for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Yes, all complaints against government lawyers seeking to discipline them as members of the Bar must be filed directly before the Supreme Court.

4. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over complaints against government lawyers that touch upon their continuing obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and/or the Lawyer's Oath, making them unfit to practice law.

5. If a complaint against a government lawyer does not make them unfit to practice law, the Supreme Court shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and refer it to the appropriate government office or the Ombudsman for further action.

6. The court finds Atty. Trinidad guilty of gross immorality and imposes the penalty of disbarment upon her.

7. The court has jurisdiction to resolve the present disbarment complaint.

8. The respondent is found guilty of violating the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for engaging in disrespectful conduct towards the court. He is reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

9. Writing an open letter criticizing the decision of the court does not per se constitute a ground for disbarment. Disbarment is a penalty imposed for gross misconduct or for any offense involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct, or a gross violation of his duties as an attorney.

PRINCIPLES:

• Disbarment proceedings are sui generis and not meant to inflict criminal or civil sanctions.

• The Supreme Court has the constitutional mandate to regulate the admission to and practice of law, including the authority to discipline, suspend, or disbar lawyers.

• Compliance with rules and ethical conduct in the legal profession is strictly enforced.

• Disbarment complaints against government lawyers may be referred to administrative bodies or the Ombudsman if the misconduct primarily involves their official duties. However, if the misconduct constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction.

• Impeachment proceedings and disciplinary cases against lawyers share the common purpose of preserving the integrity of the institution concerned.

• Forum shopping cannot be invoked by a government lawyer against whom separate complaints have been filed.

• Fitness to be a lawyer is a continuing requirement and is measured against the standards laid out in the Lawyer's Oath and the CPR.

• The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to discipline government lawyers who committed acts or omissions involving their official duties.

• The Supreme Court can dismiss a complaint against a government lawyer and refer it to the appropriate government office or the Ombudsman if it does not make them unfit to practice law.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibit lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and from behaving in a scandalous manner that reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law.

• Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court allows the Supreme Court to remove or suspend a lawyer for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the oath of a lawyer, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney without authority.

• Gross immorality refers to acts that are so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under scandalous or revolting circumstances that shock the common sense of decency.

• The maintenance of an illicit relationship by a lawyer constitutes grossly immoral conduct, breaching the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the legal profession.

• Adulterous affairs that result in the birth of a child are considered grossly immoral conduct.

• Denial of a relationship without evidence and failure to dispute pieces of evidence may be considered as an admission of guilt.

• Extra-marital affairs are not tolerated by God or the court.

• Lawyers are expected to maintain the respect due to the courts and to promote public confidence in the administration of justice.

• Lawyers have a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to refrain from any act or omission that may obstruct, degrade, or obstruct the administration of justice.

• A lawyer's criticism of a court's decision should be made in a respectful manner and should not go beyond the bounds of fair comment and legitimate disagreement.