Disbarment and Discipline of Lawyers

Rule 139-B

Initiation of Disbarment

Any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings.

A disbarment proceeding may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
However, if the complainant refuses to testify and the charges cannot then be substantiated, the court will have no
alternative but to dismiss the case.

Characteristics of Disbarment Proceedings

1. Sui Generis (a class of its own; neither a civil action nor a criminal proceeding)
2. Defense of “double jeopardy” cannot be availed of in a disbarment proceeding;
3. Can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court (SC) or Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).It can
be initiated without a complaint;
4. Imprescriptible;
5. Conducted confidentially;
6. Can proceed regardless of the interest or the lack thereof on the part of the complainant;
7. It in itself constitutes due process of law;
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in
another action;
9. In pari delicto rule not applicable;
10. No prejudicial question in disbarment proceedings;
11. Penalty in a disbarment case cannot be in the alternative;
12. Monetary claims cannot be granted except restitution and return of monies and properties of the client
given in the course of the lawyer-client relationship.

Three-fold Purpose of Confidentiality of Disbarment Proceedings

1. To enable the court to make its investigation free from extraneous influence or interference;
2. To protect the personal and professional reputation of attorneys from baseless charges of disgruntled,
vindictive and irresponsible persons or clients by prohibiting publication of such charges pending their final
resolution;
3. To deter the press from publishing charges or proceedings based thereon for even a verbatim reproduction
of the complaint against an attorney in the newspaper may be actionable.

Three-fold Purpose of Confidentiality of Disbarment Proceedings

The confidentiality of the proceedings is a privilege which MAY BE WAIVED by the lawyer in whom
and for the protection of whose personal and professional reputation it is vested, as by presenting the
testimony in a disbarment case or using it as impeaching evidence in a civil suit.

Offices authorized to investigate disbarment proceedings

1. SC
2. IBP through its Commission on Bar Discipline or authorized investigator
3. Office of the Solicitor General

Offices authorized to investigate disbarment proceedings

All charges against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, Judges of the Court of Tax
Appeals and lower courts, even if lawyers are jointly charged with them, shall be filed with the SC. If filed with the
IBP, it shall immediately be forwarded to SC.
Purposes of disbarment

1. To protect the public

2. To protect and preserve the legal profession
3. To compel the lawyer to comply with his duties and obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility
Quantum of Evidence Required: clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence or clearly preponderant
evidence
Burden of Proof: rests on the complainant, the one who instituted the suit

Section 1. How Instituted

Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu
propio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint
shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

The IBP Board of Governors may, motu propio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of
Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges against erring attorneys
including those in the government service.

Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its
chapter who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.

A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

Section 2. National Grievance Investigators

The Board of Governors shall appoint from among IBP members an Investigator or, when special circumstances
so warrant, a panel of three (3) investigators to investigate the complaint. All Investigators shall take an oath of
office in the form prescribed by the Board of Governors. A copy of the Investigator's appointment and oath shall
be transmitted to the Supreme Court.
An Investigator may be disqualified by reason of relationship within the fourth degree of consanguinity of affinity
to any of the parties of their counsel, pecuniary interest, personal bias, or his having acted as counsel to his
acting as such Investigator. Where the Investigator does not disqualify himself, a party may appeal to the IBP
Board of Governors, which by majority vote of the members present, there being a quorum, may order his
disqualification.
Any Investigator may also be removed for cause, after due hearing, by the vote of at least six (6) members of the
IBP Board of Governors. The decision of the Board of Governors in all cases of disqualification or removal shall be
final.

Section 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator

The National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar
referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors.

Section 4. Chapter assistance to complainant

The proper IBP Chapter may assist the complainant(s) in the preparation and filing of his complaint(s).

Section 5. Service or dismissal.

If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the
respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint
does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not
meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the
 resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case
motu propio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the
complainant.
No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise,
restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same, unless the Supreme
Court motu propio or upon recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors, determines that there is no
compelling reason to continue with the disbarment or suspension proceedings against the respondent.
(Amendment pursuant to Supreme Court Resolution dated May 27, 1993 re Bar Matter 356).

Section 6. Verification and service of answer.

The answer shall be verified. The original and five (5) legible copies of the answer shall be filed with the
Investigator, with proof of service of a copy thereof on the complainant or his counsel.

Section 7. Administrative counsel.

The IBP Board of Governors shall appoint a suitable member of the Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the
complainant of the respondent during the investigation in case of need for such assistance.

Section 8. Investigation.

Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed,
proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths.
The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf, and be
heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement,
unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.
Willful failure or refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt
with as for indirect contempt of court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP
Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice.
The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set
forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated
within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like
period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall
forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.

Section 9. Depositions.

Depositions may be taken in accordance with the Rules of Court with leave of the investigator(s).
Within the Philippines, depositions may be taken before any member of the Board of Governors, the President
of any Chapter, or any officer authorized by law to administer oaths.
Depositions may be taken outside the Philippines before diplomatic or consular representative of the Philippine
Government or before any person agreed upon by the parties or designated by the Board of Governors.
Any suitable member of the Integrated Bar in the place where a deposition shall be taken may be designated by
the Investigator to assist the complainant or the respondent in taking a deposition.

Section 10. Report of Investigator.

Not later than thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the Investigator shall submit a report
containing his findings of fact and recommendations to the IBP Board of Governors, together with the
stenographic notes and the transcript thereof, and all the evidence presented during the investigation. The
 submission of the report need not await the transcription of the stenographic notes, it being sufficient that the
report reproduce substantially from the Investigator's personal notes any relevant and pertinent testimonies.

Section 11. Defects.

No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the Investigator's Report shall be considered as
substantial unless the Board of Governors, upon considering the whole record, finds that such defect has
resulted or may result in a miscarriage of justice, in which event the Board shall take such remedial action as the
circumstances may warrant, including invalidation of the entire proceedings.

Section 12. Review and decision by the Board of Governors.

a) Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board of Governors upon the record and
evidence transmitted to it by the Investigator with his report. The decision of the Board upon such review shall
be in writing and shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the reasons on which it is based. It shall be
promulgated within a period not exceeding thirty (30) days from the next meeting of the Board following the
submittal of the Investigator's Report.
b) If the Board, by the vote of a majority of its total membership, determines that the respondent should be
suspended from the practice of law or disbarred, it shall issue a resolution setting forth its findings and
recommendations which, together with the whole record of the case, shall forthwith be transmitted to the
Supreme Court for final action.
c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less than suspension
or disbarment (such as admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a decision exonerating respondent or
imposing such sanction. The case shall be deemed terminated unless upon petition of the complainant or other
interested party filed with the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of the Board's resolution, the
Supreme Court orders otherwise.
d) Notice of the resolution or decision of the Board shall be given to all parties through their counsel. A copy of
the same shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court.

B. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Section 13. Supreme Court Investigation.

In proceedings initiated motu propio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest of justice
so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor-General or to any officer of
the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner
provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted
directly by the Supreme Court.

Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General of other Court-designated Investigator.

Based upon the evidence adduced at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator designated by
the Supreme Court shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations for the final action of the Supreme Court.

C. COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 15. Suspension of attorney by Supreme Court.

After receipt of respondent's answer or lapse of the period therefor, the Supreme Court, motu propio, or at the
instance of the IBP Board of Governors upon the recommendation of the Investigator, may suspend an attorney
from the practice of his profession for any of the causes specified in Rule 138, Section 27, during the pendency of
the investigation until such suspension is lifted by the Supreme Court.
Section 16. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court.

The Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named
in Rule 138, Section 27 2, until further action of the Supreme Court in the case.

Section 17. Upon suspension by Court of Appeals or Regional Trial Court, further proceedings in Supreme Court.

Upon such suspension, the Court of Appeals or a Regional Trial Court shall forthwith transmit to the Supreme
Court a certified copy of the order of suspension and a full statement of the facts upon which the same was
based. Upon receipt of such certified copy and statement, the Supreme Court shall make a full investigation of
the case and may revoke, shorten or extend the suspension, or disbar the attorney as the facts may warrant.

Section 18. Confidentiality.

Proceedings against attorneys shall be private and confidential. However, the final order of the Supreme Court
shall be published like its decisions in other cases.

Section 19. Expenses

All reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in relation to disciplinary and disbarment proceedings are lawful
charges for which the parties may be taxed as costs.

Section 20. Effectivity and Transitory Provision.

This Rule shall take effect June 1, 1988 and shall supersede the present Rule 139 entitled "DISBARMENT OR
SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEYS". All cases pending investigation by the Office of the Solicitor General shall be
transferred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors for investigation and disposition as
provided in this Rule except those cases where the investigation has been substantially completed.

RE: AMENDMENT OF RULE 139-B Bar Matter No. 1645 October 13, 2015

The SC removed the power of the Integrated bar of the Philippines (IBP) to dismiss complaints
against erring members of the bar.

Disbarment and discipline of lawyers and also directed the IBP to revise its rules of procedure in accordance
with the amendments.

The amendment specifically covered Sections 1 (How Instituted), 5 (Service or Dismissal), 12 (Review and
Recommendation by the Board of Governors), 13 (Investigation of Complaints), and 15 (Suspension of
Attorney by the Supreme Court) of Rule 139-B.

Previously, the IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) may dismiss any complaint against a lawyer upon the
recommendation of the investigator.

Section 5 of Bar Matter No. 1645 now only grants the IBP recommendatory powers, “if the complaint does
not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not
meritorious, the Investigator will recommend to the Board of Governors the dismissal of the complaint.”

Under the new rules, only the SC can order the dismissal of any complaint against a lawyer.

GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT OR SUSPENSION OF A LAWYER

1. Deceit 5. Conviction of a crime involving mora

2. Malpractice turpitude
3. Conflict of Interest 6. Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath
4. Gross Immoral Conduct
 7. Willful disobedience to any lawful order of a 8. Willful appearance as attorney for any party
superior court without authority
A. Deceit

Cham vs. Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro [A.C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005] - A lawyer was subjected to disciplinary
action for selling a non-disposable land of the public domain. He violated his oath not to do falsehood and
misrepresentation to the buyer-complainant.

i. For a lawyer to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, the transaction entered into need not be in the
performance of professional services. It can be in his private capacity.

ii. Professional honesty and honor are not to be expected as the accompaniment of dishonesty and
dishonor in other relations.

B. Malpractice

Nakpil vs. Atty. Carlos J. Valdes [March 4, 1998]

◦ A lawyer violated the trust and confidence of the client when he represented conflicting interest. He
represented the creditors when his accounting firm prepared and computed the claims of the
creditors while his law firm represented the estate.

C. Conflict of Interest

Pormento vs. Pontevedra, [March 31, 2005]

◦ A lawyer has to disclose to his client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties in
connection with the controversy which might influence the client in the selection of counsel.

◦ It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests except by express consent of all concerned

given after full disclosure of the facts.

Tests to determine if there is conflicting interests:

1. If the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his
first client in any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired thru their connection;

2. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.

*Reason for prohibition

The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of
the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s case. He learns from his
client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and
guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of his client’s secrets. A lawyer must have
the fullest confidence of his client. For, if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.

The prohibition applies however slight such adverse interest may be (Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758).

The essence of the rule is to maintain inviolate the client’s confidence or to refrain from obtaining anything which
will injuriously affect in any matter in which he previously represented him.
D. Grossly Immoral Conduct

Emma Dantes vs. Atty. Crispin Dantes [A.C. No. 6488, September 22, 2004]

◦ The wife complained that her husband was a philanderer, having illicit relationship with two women.
He was disbarred. A lawyer must demonstrate that he or she has good moral character and should
behave in accordance with the standards.

E. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

In the Matter of Disbarment Proceedings vs. Narciso Jaranillo, [101 Phil. 323]

◦ A lawyer was disbarred for having been convicted of estafa.

◦ The wife complained that her husband was a philanderer, having illicit relationship with two women.
He was disbarred. A lawyer must demonstrate that he or she has good moral character and should
behave in accordance with the standards.

In Re: Dalmacio delos Angeles, [106 Phil. 1]

◦ A lawyer was convicted of the crime of bribery. He was disbarred.

F. Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath

a. Judge Ubaldino Larucon vs. Atty. Ellis Jacoba [A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006]

◦ In his motion, the lawyer stated: The judgment is an “abhorrent nullity”, “legal monstrosity”,
“horrendous mistake”, “horrible error”, “an insult to the judiciary”, and “an anachronism in the
judicial process”.

◦ The lawyer was suspended. The language exceeded the vigor required of a lawyer to defend ably his
client’s cause.

b. Almendrez vs. Atty. Minervo Langit [A.C. No. 7057, July 25, 2006]

◦ A lawyer was suspended for having appropriated the rental deposits for his client in an ejectment
suit.

c. Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera [435 SCRA 417]

◦ A lawyer who was suspended from the practice of law abroad may likewise be sanctioned in the
Philippines for infraction he committed abroad. (Velez vs. De Vera, A.C. No. 6697, July 25, 2006).

G. Willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court

Luzon Mahogany Timber Ind., Inc. vs. Castro, 69 SCRA 384;

H. Willfully appearance as attorney for any party without authority (Sec. 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro, A.C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005)

Porac Trucking Corp. vs. CA, 202 SCRA 674; Garrido vs. Quisumbing, [28 SCRA 614]

◦ A lawyer was suspended from the practice of law in appearing for a party defendant without
authority.

◦ A judge may require a lawyer to prove that he is authorized to appear for a client.
CASES INVOLVING IBP PROCEEDINGS

RE: LETTER OF LUCENA OFENDOREYES ALLEGING ILLICIT ACTIVITIES OF A CERTAIN ATTY. CAJAYON INVOLVING
CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY (A.M. No. 16-12-03-CA June 6, 2017)

Ruling: Under the Rules of Court, administrative complaints both against lawyers and judges of regular and
special courts as well as Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan must be verified and
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations.

For lawyers, these requirements are stated in Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

For judges and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the requirements are found in
Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

In these cases, it is evident that the herein complaints lacked the fore going requirements. Moreover, it
appears that complainants did not have personal knowledge of the acts imputed against respondents as they
merely relied on hearsay to support their claims. Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings,
complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence.

Atty. Cajayon and Judge Lantion of the Court of Appeals Cagayan de Oro A.M.No. 16-12-03-CAJune 6, 2017, [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]

Issue:

What makes a complaint against a lawyer (for disbarment or disciplinary action) or a member of the judiciary
valid?

Facts:

On October 17, 2016, Adante filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a letter, alleging hat it that Atty.
Cajayon, whom she met only once, was in cahoots with Justice Lantion in engaging in the shameful business
of "selling" decisions involving cases from the CA-CDO to the highest bidder. Subsequently, or on October 25,
2017, Ofendo Reyes filed before the Ombudsman a letter, requesting the latter to investigate and stop the
purported partnership of Atty.Cajayon and Justice Lantion from the business of selling decisions in exchange
for money. Both letter-complaints were respectively referred by the Ombudsman to the SC on November 22,
2016 and November 23, 2016, which were, consequently, docketed as IPI No. 17-248-CA-J and A.M. No. 16-
12-03-CA.In a Resolution dated January 10, 2017, the Court referred the administrative matters to the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) to study the possible consolidation of the two complaints. In a
Memorandum dated February 14, 2017, the OCA recommended that the matters be consolidated. The OCA,
however, observed that the letter-complaints were insufficient in form and substance in that they: (1) were
not verified; and (2) lacked affidavits of persons who may have personal knowledge of the facts to prove or
substantiate the letter-complaints' allegations against respondents, as well as supporting documents
.Moreover, it echoed the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent
committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant, and that in the absence of evidence against a
court employee or magistrate to discipline for a grave offense, the presumption that the respondent has
regularly performed his duties will prevail.

Ruling:

Under the Rules of Court, administrative complaints both against lawyers and judges of regular and special
courts as well as Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan must be verified and supported by
 affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may
substantiate said allegations. For lawyers, these requirements are stated in Section 1, Rule 139-B of the
Rules of Court. For judges and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the requirements are
found in Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. In these cases, it is evident that the herein complaints
lacked the fore going requirements. Moreover, it appears that complainants did not have personal
knowledge of the acts imputed against respondents as they merely relied on hearsay to support their claims.
Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the
allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence.

The Court finds no proper conclusion other than to dismiss outright the present cases.

CHAM VS PIZARRO (A. C. No. 5499, August 16, 2005)

Ruling: The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be
wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the
privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or suspension.

FACTS:

Before this Court is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Wilson Po Cham (complainant)
against Atty. Edilberto D. Pizarro (respondent) for commission of falsehood and misrepresentations in
violation of a lawyer’s oath.

Complainant gives the following account of the facts that spawned the filing of the present administrative
complaint.

According to the complainant, Cañete, Alipio and now deceased Navarro offered for sale to him a parcel of
land with an area of approximately forty (40) hectares. He having expressed interest in the offer, Cañete and
Navarro arranged a meeting between him and respondent where he categorically represented to him that
the property being offered for sale was alienable and disposable. Respondent in fact presented to him 1)
Real Property Tax Order of Payment ; 2) a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by the alleged
previous actual occupant of the property, 3) Special Power of Attorney by his alleged co- owners authorizing
him to sell the property. Respondent then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in his favor
stating that the property is presently in the possession of the sellers. The sellers agree with the buyer that
they are the absolute owners of the rights over the said property; that they have the perfect right to convey
the same; that they acquired their rights over the said property by absolute deed of sale.

After payment, he subsequently took possession of the property and installed a barbed wire fence at its
front portion. Soon after, however, a forest guard approached him and informed him that the property could
not be fenced as it was part of the Bataan National Park. Upon investigation, he discovered that the property
is not an alienable or disposable land susceptible of private ownership. He thus secured a Certification from
CENR stating that the said lands fall within the Bataan Natural Park and under the Public Land Law, lands
within this category are not subject for disposition. Upon his request, the PENR issued a Certification stating
that those named by respondent as prior owners of rights over the property from which respondent and his
alleged co-owners acquired their alleged rights were not among those inventoried as occupants. Despite
repeated demands, respondent refused to return the purchase price of the rights over the property. Hence
this petition. Respondent denied having employed deceit or having pretended to co-own rights over the
property or having represented that it was alienable and disposable. Respondent surmised that complainant
bought the rights over the property in the hope that lands belonging to the public domain in Morong "would
be eventually declared alienable and disposable to meet the rising demand for economic zones."

The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found
that the respondent to have violated his oath as a member of the Bar to do no falsehood and
misrepresentations, recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months, subject to
the approval of the members of the Board of Governors. Pertinent portions of the Report and
Recommendation read: . . . [I]t is evident that as early as of (sic) 1992, the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of NIPAS ACT prohibited the illegal selling of rights or possession of the areas occupied within
the Bataan Natural Park ; a fact supposed to be known by the respondent being a resident of Balanga,
Bataan and was in the practice of his profession also in said area. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the Committee Report and Recommendation. The case was forwarded to this Court for final action
The IBP findings are well-taken.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent shall be held liable