Atty. Perez induced Eunice to invest money in a trading business with guaranteed profits. Atty. Perez assured Eunice that the business was doing well. Eunice agreed and delivered to Atty. Perez PHP 10,000,000.00 as capital investment. Atty. Perez issued to Eunice postdated checks with amounts representing her capital and expected profits. Thereafter, Eunice discovered that the trading business was a sham and that the checks were all drawn against a closed account. Aggrieved, Eunice filed against Atty. Perez a criminal action for estafa and a disbarment complaint for gross misconduct. Atty. Perez sought to suspend the disciplinary charge against him pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. Atty. Perez explained that his innocence or acquittal constitutes a prejudicial question to his administrative liability arising from similar incidents. Does the pending criminal action constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the disbarment case? Explain.
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
No, the pending criminal action does not constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the disbarment case. Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, a prejudicial question involves a
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does a pending criminal case for estafa constitute a prejudicial question to suspend a disbarment proceeding against a lawyer?
A prejudicial question can only exist between a civil action and a criminal action, not between an administrative case and a criminal case.
Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, between which types of actions may a prejudicial question arise?
Section 7 of Rule 111 provides that a prejudicial question arises specifically between a civil action and a criminal action.
What is the legal nature of disciplinary and disbarment proceedings against lawyers in the Philippines?
Disciplinary actions against lawyers are sui generis, being neither purely civil nor purely criminal in nature.
What quantum of proof is required to establish administrative liability in a disbarment complaint against an attorney?
Choices available with full access.
How does the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal case affect a pending disbarment complaint based on the same facts?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Prejudicial Question
Under Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein. A prejudicial question requires that the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, and that the resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed. Jurisprudence firmly establishes that a prejudicial question can only exist between a civil case and a criminal case, never between a criminal case and an administrative disciplinary proceeding.
2. Sui Generis Nature
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, being neither purely civil nor purely criminal in character. They are investigations by the Supreme Court into the conduct of its officers to determine whether they remain fit to practice law. Because disbarment proceedings do not involve private civil rights or criminal prosecution, they proceed independently of any pending criminal cases arising from the same facts. The outcome of a criminal action, whether conviction or acquittal, does not bind or control the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar.
3. Quantum of Proof
In administrative disbarment complaints against lawyers, the required quantum of proof is substantial evidence, defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In contrast, criminal prosecutions for offenses such as estafa require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Because of these distinct standards of proof and independent objectives, a criminal conviction or acquittal does not determine administrative liability, and a pending criminal prosecution cannot stay or suspend disbarment proceedings.