Flashcards Studio

Atty. Lorenzo P., a practitioner in good standing of the Philippine Bar, is the subject of a verified administrative complaint for alleged professional misconduct involving misappropriation of client funds and falsified accounting records. The Supreme Court, through the Office of the Bar Discipline, issues an order of preventive suspension under Sec. 31, Canon VI CPRA, effective immediately for six months, prohibiting Lorenzo from practicing law or appearing before any court and directing him to surrender his certificate of enrollment. The order states that Lorenzo was given notice and a brief opportunity to respond, but no full hearing was conducted before the suspension. After two months, the disciplinary panel recommends disbarment. Lorenzo challenges the order as lacking due process. (a) Identify the controlling rule on preventive suspension under Sec. 31, including its purpose and scope. (b) Distinguish preventive suspension from final disbarment and from ordinary suspension, and outline the due process requirements that must attend Sec. 31 orders. (c) Apply the rule to Lorenzo’s case: Was the six-month preventive suspension proper under the facts presented? If not, what defects exist and what remedies are available to challenge or lift the suspension?