Scribd
Upload
225 views2 pages

Frias Vs Lozada

Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was suspended from practicing law for two years for violating legal ethics rules. She filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the complaint was time-barred under the two-year prescriptive period in the IBP rules. However, the Court has previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. Furthermore, the respondent failed to raise the prescription defense earlier. The Court also struck down the two-year prescriptive period in the IBP rules as being inconsistent with prior rulings and ultra vires.

Uploaded by

Carl AJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
225 views2 pages

Frias Vs Lozada

Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-Lozada was suspended from practicing law for two years for violating legal ethics rules. She filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the complaint was time-barred under the two-year prescriptive period in the IBP rules. However, the Court has previously ruled that administrative complaints against lawyers do not prescribe. Furthermore, the respondent failed to raise the prescription defense earlier. The Court also struck down the two-year prescriptive period in the IBP rules as being inconsistent with prior rulings and ultra vires.

Uploaded by

Carl AJ
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Digest: Bobby Rose Frias vs. Atty.

Carmelita Bautista-Lozada
A.C. No. 6656
(Formerly CBD-98-591)

May 4, 2006

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Carmelita Bautista-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 of attorneys 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.
 
       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 of administrative 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. 
 

You might also like