Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 351 views

    Frias vs. Lozada

    Uploaded by

    Yong Naz
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on an administrative complaint filed against respondent lawyer Carmelita Bautista-Lozada. Previously, Lozada was found guilty of violating legal ethics rules and disobeying a court order, resulting in a two-year suspension from practicing law. Lozada argued the complaint was time-barred by a two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules. However, the Court rejected this defense, as it had previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. The Court also invalidated the two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules as being contrary to settled jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Frias vs. Lozada

    Uploaded by

    Yong Naz
    351 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on an administrative complaint filed against respondent lawyer Carmelita Bautista-Lozada. Previously, Lozada was found guilty of violating legal ethics rules and disobeying a court order, resulting in a two-year suspension from practicing law. Lozada argued the complaint was time-barred by a two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules. However, the Court rejected this defense, as it had previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. The Court also invalidated the two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules as being contrary to settled jurisprudence.

    Original Title

    5. Frias vs. Lozada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on an administrative complaint filed against respondent lawyer Carmelita Bautista-Lozada. Previously, Lozada was found guilty of violating legal ethics rules and disobeying a court order, resulting in a two-year suspension from practicing law. Lozada argued the complaint was time-barred by a two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules. However, the Court rejected this defense, as it had previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. The Court also invalidated the two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules as being contrary to settled jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    351 views2 pages

    Frias vs. Lozada

    Uploaded by

    Yong Naz
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on an administrative complaint filed against respondent lawyer Carmelita Bautista-Lozada. Previously, Lozada was found guilty of violating legal ethics rules and disobeying a court order, resulting in a two-year suspension from practicing law. Lozada argued the complaint was time-barred by a two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules. However, the Court rejected this defense, as it had previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. The Court also invalidated the two-year prescriptive period under the IBP rules as being contrary to settled jurisprudence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    A.C. No. 6656
    May 4, 2006
    [Formerly CBD-98-591]
    BOBIE ROSE V. FRIAS, Complainant,
    vs.
    ATTY. CARMELITA S. BAUTISTA-LOZADA,* Respondent.
    FACTS:
    Respondent Atty. CarmelitaBautista-Lozada was formerly found guilty
    of violating Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
    and of willfully disobeying a final and executory decision of the Court of
    Appeals. She was suspended from the practice of law for two years.
    Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the Court,
    contending that, pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the
    Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    (IBP), the complaint against her was already barred by prescription. She also
    asserts that her December 7, 1990 loan agreement with complainant
    complied with Rule 16.04 because the interest of complainant was fully
    protected.
    ISSUES:
    a. Whether or not the administrative complaint is barred by prescription?
    b. Whether or not Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the
    CBD-IBP is valid?
    RULING:
    a. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP provides:
    SECTION 1. Prescription. A complaint for disbarment, suspension or
    discipline ofattorneys prescribes in two (2) years from the date of the
    professional misconduct.
    However, as early as 1967, the Court has held that the defense of
    prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. And
    in the 2004 case of Heck v. Santos, the Court declared that
    an administrative complaint against a member of the bar does not prescribe.
    1 Frias vs. Lozada
    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

    Moreover, assuming that prescription is a valid defense, respondent


    raised it only at this late stage. We presume she was familiar with that rule
    yet she failed to invoke it at the earliest opportunity.Instead she opted to
    insist on her innocence.
    b. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which
    provides
    for
    a
    prescriptive
    period
    for
    the filing ofadministrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the
    settled ruling of the Court. It should therefore be struck down as void
    and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
    Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
    Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby declared null
    and void.

    2 Frias vs. Lozada


    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy