7/23/2019 35. Tajan vs Cusi.doc

1/2

Tajan vs Cusi CA and CFI has the power to investigate and suspendmembers of the barG.R. No. L-28899. May 3! "9#$

Fa%ts&

In a letter addressed to petitioner, Alfredo C. Tajan, he was required by JudgeCusi to explain within ! hours why he should not be removed or suspendedfrom the pra"ti"e of law for preparing, or "ausing to be prepared, a petitionin "ourt "ontaining fa"tual averments whi"h petitioner #new were false.

$etitioner, in answer thereto, wrote a letter to respondent Judge denying thematerial averments of respondent Judge%s letter and explaining the"ir"umstan"es under whi"h he prepared the aforementioned petition.

Apparently not satis&ed with petitioner%s answer, respondent Judge had hisletter &led and do"#eted as Adm. Case against petitioner, and, together withAdm. Case against Atty. Justo Cin"o, gave due "ourse thereto. At the hearing,petitioner questioned, among others, the propriety of the pro"eedings,"ontending that sin"e the "ase was one for disbarment, respondent Judgehad no jurisdi"tion over the person of petitioner as well as the subje"t matterthereof. $etitioner orally moved that respondent Judge inhibit himself fromhearing the administrative "ase in view of the latter%s "on'i"ting positions asprose"utor and judge at the same time. The oral motion was denied.

(espondent Judge pro"eeded to hear the eviden"e against petitioner.

$etitioner%s thesis is that respondent Judge has no authority on his ownmotion to hear and determine pro"eedings for disbarment or suspension ofattorneys be"ause jurisdi"tion thereon is vested ex"lusively and originally inthe )upreme Court and not in "ourts of &rst instan"e. $etitioner also"ontends that assuming arguendo that "ourts of &rst instan"e have su"hauthority, the pro"edure outlined in (ule *+ of the (evised (ules of Courtshould govern the &ling and investigation of the "omplaint.

Issue&

-hether or not Judge Cusi has authority on his own motion to hear anddetermine pro"eedings for disbarment or suspension of attorneys

7/23/2019 35. Tajan vs Cusi.doc

2/2

'e(d&

es. The power to ex"lude un&t and unworthy members of the legal

profession stems from the inherent power of the )upreme Court to regulatethe pra"ti"e of law and the admission of persons to engage in that pra"ti"e.It is a ne"essary in"ident to the proper administration of justi"e. An attorney/at/law is an o0"er of the "ourt in the administration of justi"e and as su"h heis "ontinually a""ountable to the Court for the manner in whi"h he exer"isesthe privilege whi"h has been granted to him. 1is admission to the pra"ti"e oflaw is upon the implied "ondition that his "ontinued enjoyment of the right"onferred, is dependent upon his remaining a &t and safe person to exer"iseit. -hen it appears by a"ts of mis"ondu"t that he has be"ome un&t to"ontinue with the trust reposed upon him, his right to "ontinue in theenjoyment of that trust and for the enjoyment of the professional privilege

a""orded to him may and ought to be forfeited. The law a""ords to the Courtof Appeals and the Court of 2irst Instan"e the power to investigate andsuspend members of the bar.

The appli"able provisions are )e"tion !3, ! and +4 of (ule *+3 of the(evised (ules of Court as well as the provisions from )e"tions !!, !+ and !5,respe"tively, of the Code of Civil $ro"edure.

It should be observed that pro"eedings for the disbarment of members of thebar are not in any sense a "ivil a"tion where there is a plainti6 and therespondent is a defendant. 7is"iplinary pro"eedings involve no private

interest and a6ord no redress for private grievan"e. They are underta#en andprose"uted solely for the publi" welfare. They are underta#en for the purposeof preserving "ourts of justi"e from the o0"ial ministration of persons un&t topra"ti"e in them. The attorney is "alled to answer to the "ourt for his "ondu"tas an o0"er of the "ourt. The "omplainant or the person who "alled theattention of the "ourt to the attorney%s alleged mis"ondu"t is in no sense aparty, and has generally no interest in the out"ome ex"ept as all good"iti8ens may have in the proper administration of justi"e. The "ourt maytherefore a"t upon its own motion and thus be the initiator of thepro"eedings, be"ause, obviously the "ourt may investigate into the "ondu"tof its own o0"ers. Indeed it is not only the right but the duty of the Court to

institute upon its own motion, proper pro"eedings for the suspension or thedisbarment of an attorney, when from information submitted to it or of itsown #nowledge it appears that any attorney has so "ondu"ted himself in a"ase pending before said "ourt as to show that he is wanting in the propermeasure of respe"t for the "ourt of whi"h he is an o0"er, or is la"#ing in thegood "hara"ter essential to his "ontinuan"e as an attorney. This is for theprote"tion of the general publi" and to promote the purity of theadministration of justi"e.