Notre Dame University

College of Law

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Disciplinary Proceedings Against Lawyers

Group 2 Members

1. Abutazil, Bai Sarah

2. Aliuden, Fahleah
3. Amilhasan, Menaldz
4. Usman, Bai Harissa
5. Usman, Salambai

Submitted to:

Atty. Noel Gretare

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
sui generis disciplinary proceedings are a class of their own, neither civil
nor criminal, but an investigation into the character of a lawyer to determine
his fitness to continue in the practice of law. They involve no private interest
and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken solely for
public welfare.

WHO AND HOW INSTITUTED

1. Initiated by the Supreme court motu propio or by the IBP, or upon

verified complaint by any person filed with the Supreme Court or an IBP
Chapter. .
2. If complaint prima facie meritorious, referred to the IBP, or the Solicitor
General, any officer of the Court or a judge of a lower court.
3. IBP Board of Governors assigns complaint to Commission on Bar
Discipline (CBD).
4. CBD will assign complaint to a Commissioner or group of
Commissioners.
5. If complaint found meritorious, Commissioner(s) will require
respondent to file an answer.
6. Commissioner will conduct hearing in which respondent is accorded
due process.
7. After hearing, Commissioner(s) will submit Report and
Recommendation to IBP Board of Governors.
8. Board of Governors will render decision, either exonerating the
respondent and dismissing the case, or imposing a sanction less than
suspension, or recommending suspension or disbarment to the Supreme
Court.
Exoneration may be appealed by the complainant to the Supreme Court.
Sanction of less than suspension or disbarment may be appealed by the
respondent to the Supreme Court. Either one may file a motion for
reconsideration with the IBP Board before appealing.
9. Supreme Court renders decision, by division if penalty is fine of
P10,000 less and/or suspension for one year or less, and by the court en
banc, if penalty is fine of more than P10,000.00 and/or suspension for more
than one year, or disbarment.

A. PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES

SEC. 2. NATIONAL GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATOR

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
Investigators appointment and oath shall be transmitted to the Supreme
Court.
SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATOR

The National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints

against members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines referred to them by
the IBP Board of Governor.

SEC. 4. CHAPTER ASSISTANCE TO COMPLAINT

The proper IBP chapter may assist the complainant(s) in the

preparation and filing of his complaint(s).

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSEL

The IBP Board of Governors shall appoint a suitable members of the

Integrated Bar as counsel to assist the complainant or the respondent during
the investigation in case of need for such assistant.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 9. DEPOSITION
 Deposition may be taken in accordance with the Rules of Court with
leave of the Investigator(s).

SEC. 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 recommendation to the IBP Board, 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 investigators personal notes ant relevant and
pertinent testimonies.

SEC. 11. DEFECTS

No defect in a complaint, notice, answer, or in the proceeding or the

investigators 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 mat warrant, including
invalidation of the entire proceedings.

SEC. 12 REVIEW AND DECISION BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS

- Every case heard by an investigator shall be reviewed by the IBP Board

of Governor upon the record and evidence transmitted to it by the
investigator with his report.
- If the Board, by the vote of majority of its total membership,
determines that the respondent should be suspended from the practice of
law or disbarred.
- If the respondent is exonerated by the Board or the disciplinary
sanction imposed by it is less than suspension or disbarment it shall issue a
decision exonerating respondent or imposing such action.
- 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

SEC. 13. Investigation by Solicitor General

In proceedings initiated motu proprio 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 ooficer of
the Supreme Court or judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation
shall proceed in the same manner provided in section 6 to 11 hereof, save
that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by
the Supreme Court.

SEC. 14. REPORT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OR 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 together with the record and all the evidence presented in
the investigation for the final action of the Supreme Court.

C. COMMON PROVISIONS

SEC. 15. SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEY BY SUPREME COURT

After receipt of respondent s answer or lapse of the period therefor,

the Supreme Court, motu proprio, or at the instance of the IBP Board of
Governors upon the recommendation of the investigators, may suspend an
attorney from the practice of 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.

SEC. 16. SUSPENSION OF ATTORNEY BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OR

A REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

The Court of appeals or the RTC may suspend an attorney from

practice for any of the causes named in Rule 138, section 27, until further
action of the Supreme Court in the case.

SEC. 17. UPON SUSPENSION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OR

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME
COURT.

Upon such suspension, the CA or a RTC 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.

MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
 The extent of disciplinary sanction which the court may impose against
an erring lawyer may depend upon the attendance of mitigating or
aggravating circumstances.

A. Circumstance that may be considered in mitigation of the offense

committed by a lawyer includes:
Good faith
Want of intention to commit a wrong
Lack of material damage to the complaining witness
Desistance of complainant
Youth and inexperience in the bar
Error in judgment
Honest and efficient service in various government positions
Being counsels first offense
The lawyers admitting his mistake and expressing regrets and
apologies
Counsels ready admission of the infraction coupled with his
explanation and plea for forgiveness
Counsels clean record of professional service in the past.
That the lawyer rendered professional services out of pure generosity
may deserve lenient treatment.
The fact that a lawyer had been punished in another capacity for
misconduct for which he now faces a disbarment proceeding may justify a
lighter penalty against him as a member in the bar.
Old ae and long membership
Or aggravating depending on the circumstances.

B. Matters in aggravation of the offense;

Abuse of the authority or of the attorney client relationship
Having sexual intercourse with the lawyers relative
Making the institution of marriage a mockery, in the charge of gross
immorality.
The fact that the lawyer has been previously disciplined as a member
of the bar aggravates his subsequent offense.
That what the lawyer sought to defraud is not merely a private person
but the government is aggravating.
So is the use by the lawyer against his former client of knowledge or
information acquired by him in the course of his previous professional
employment.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court decides the disciplinary action on the basis of

evidence adduced during the investigation conducted for the purpose. The
court may also take into account the report and recommendation of the
investigator. With respect to disciplinary actions elevated to the supreme
court from the Court of Appeals of the Regional TrialCourt for review, the high
tribunal may require that the whole record of the case be forwarded to it.
DISMISSAL OF CASE

the absence of convincing or clearly preponderant evidence, the

disbarment case against the respondent should be dismissed. Any doubt
should be resolved in his favor.

In dismissing a disciplinary action against a lawyer, the court may

impose certain conditions if the facts so warrant. It may, for instance, require
the lawyer to return the clients money in an administrative proceeding
involving the clients fund.

The death of a lawyer during the pendency of the disciplinary action against
him renders the action moot and academic and justifies dismissal on that
ground.

DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS; BASIC CONSIDERATIONS.

The primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the

administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important
function shall be competent, honorable and reliable, men in whom courts
and clients may repose confidenceshould be taken into account by the
court in the exercise of its disciplinary power.

The power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the

preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only
for the most weighty reasons and not only in clear cases of misconduct
which seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer
of the court and member of the bar.

Only those acts which cause loss of moral character should merit
disbarment or suspension, while those acts which neither affect nor erode
the moral character of the lawyer should only justify a lesser sanction, unless
they are of such a nature and of such an extent that they clearly show the
lawyers unfitness to continue the practice of law

Disbarment which is a judicial act of withdrawing the privilege to

practice law is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. It should not be
impose unless it is evidently clear that the lawyer, by his misconduct, should
never be at the bar.
 The suspension from the practice of law is correctional in nature. It
should be directed with a due regard to the effect of such suspension upon
the attorney as well as to his clients. It may be for a definite or indefinite. A
suspension for an indefinite period, which is actually a qualified disbarment,
is meted out for a specific purpose desired, generally to secure and maintain
the respect due the court from a lawyer whose disrespectful, abrasive,
abusive and threatening language against the court justifies the sanction.

Fine is a sort of warning that the lawyer should be more careful in the
discharge of his duties. If the lawyer still fails to do his duty notwithstanding
the fine imposed for his previous negligence or if he refuses to pay the fine,
he may be suspended from the practice of law.

SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT

A lawyer who has been suspended disbarred cannot practice law

without being held liable for contempt of court. The suspended lawyer may
be disbarred for violation of the suspension order. Such judgment does not
prohibit pro se practice (Geeslin vs. Navarro; 185 SCRA).
If the lawyer holds a government office which requires membership in
the bar as an indispensable qualification, he may be dismissed from said
office (Collantes vs. Renomeron; 200 SCRA).

REINSTATEMENT

The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority reinstate. This is based on its
constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules on the admission of applicants
to the practice of law. Petitioner must prove that he is once again fit and
proper person to practice law. The following must be taken into
consideration:

1. the applicants character and standing prior to disbarment;

2. the nature or character of misconduct for which he is disbarred;
3. his conduct subsequent to disbarment [Cui vs. Cui, 11 SCRA 755];
4. including his efficient government service [In re Adriatico, 17 Phil 324]
5. the time that has elapsed between disbarment and the application for
reinstatement and the
circumstances that he has been sufficiently punished and disciplined
[Prudential Bank vs. Benjamin Grecia, 192 SCRA 381]
6. applicants appreciation of significance of his dereliction and his assurance
that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity;
7. favorable endorsement of the IBP, pleas of his loved ones [Yap Tan vs.
Sabandal, 170 SCRA 207].

The court may require applicant for reinstatement to enroll in and pass the
required fourth year review classes in a recognized law school. [Cui vs. Cui,
11
SCRA 755; In re Rusiana, 56 SCRA 240]
A previously disbarred lawyer who is given absolute pardon by the President
is not automatically reinstated, he must still file a petition for reinstatement
with the SC.

CONDTION FOR REINSTATEMENT

 A lawyer who has been suspended or disbarred may be reinstated when the
SC is convinced that he has already possessed the requisites of probity and
integrity necessary to guarantee his worth to practice his profession.

EFFECTS OF REINSTATEMENT

1. Recognition of moral rehabilitation and mental fitness to practice law;

2. Lawyer shall be subject to same law, rules and regulations as those
applicable to any other lawyer;
3. Lawyer must comply with the conditions imposed on his readmission

CASES:

ALFREDO B. ROA VS ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO

FACTS:

Atty. Juan R. Moreno sold to Roa a parcel of land to Alfredo B. Roa

and paid Atty. Moreno P70,000in cash as full payment for the lot. Atty.
Moreno did not issue a deed of sale instead he issued a temporary receipt
and a Certificate of Land Occupancy. Atty. Moreno assured Roa that he could
use the lot from then on.

Roa learned that the Certificate of Land Occupancy could not be

registered in the Register of Deeds. When Roa went to see Atty. Moreno, the
latter admitted that the real owner of the lot was a certain Rubio. He also
said there was a pending legal controversy over the lot. Thereafter, Roa sent
a letter to Atty. Moreno demanding the return of the P70, 000 paid for the lot.

Roa then filed a criminal case against Atty. Moreno. MTC rendered a
decision convicting Atty. Moreno of the crime of other forms of swindling
under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
On appeal, the RTC, for lack of evidence establishing Atty. Morenos
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted Atty. Moreno.

Roa filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) an Affidavit-
Complaint against Atty.Moreno. The IBP found Atty. Moreno guilty of violating
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended to suspend Atty. Moreno from the practice of law for three
months and ordered him to return the amount of P70, 000. The IBP Board of
Governors forwarded the present case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Moreno should be disciplined and ordered to

return the amount of money paid for the sale

HELD:
 Atty. Morenos refusal to return to Roa the money paid for the lot is
unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct,
Atty. Moreno failed to live up to the strict standard of Professionalism
required by the Code of Professional responsibility.

Atty. Morenos credibility is highly questionable. Records show that he e

ven issued a bogusCertificate of Land Occupancy to Roa whose only fault
was that he did not know better. The Certificate of Land Occupancy has all
the badges of intent to defraud. It purports to be issued by the "Office of the
General Overseer." It contains verification by the "Lead, Record Department"
that the lot plan "conforms withthe record on file." It is even printed on
parchment paper strikingly similar to a certificate of title. To the unlettered,
it can easily pass off as a document evidencing title. True enough, Roa
actually tried, but failed, to register the Certificate of Land Occupancy in the
Register of Deeds. Roa readily parted with P70, 000 because of the false
assurance afforded by the sham certificate.

The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of
Atty. Moreno are not without recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court states "A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct in such office," Further, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides "A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a

lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct
committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether
his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity,
and good demeanour or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court.

In the present case, Atty. Moreno acted in his private capacity. He

misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to Roa. He refused to return
the amount paid by Roa. As a final blow, he denied having any transaction
with Roa. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his
duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. It is enjoyed only by

those who continue to display unassailable character. Thus, lawyers must
conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, not just in their dealings
with their clients but also in their dealings with the public at large, and a
violation of the
highmoral standardsof the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appr
opriate penalty, including suspension and even disbarment.

Atty. Morenos refusal to return to Roa the money paid for the lot is
unbecoming a member
of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, Atty. Moreno failed to li
ve up to the strict standard of professionalism required by the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Morenos acts violated the trust and respect Roa reposed in him
as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court. However, the penalty
of three-month suspension recommended by the IBP is insufficient to atone
for Atty. Morenos misconduct in this case.
 Supreme Court did not sustain the IBPs recommendation ordering Atty.
Moreno to return the money paid by Roa. In disciplinary proceedings against
lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be
allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The court's only concern is the
determination of Atty. Morenos administrative liability

BENILDA M. MADDELA v. ATTY. ROSALIE DALLONG-GALICINAO

FACTS:

A disbarment case was filed before the Office of the Court Administrato
r (OCA) by hereinComplainantBenilda M. Maddela (Maddela) against Atty.
Rosalie Dallong-Galicinao (Atty. Galicinao) foracts unbecoming a public
servant and a lawyer, grave misconduct and slander.Maddela averred that
she loaned an amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40, 000.00) from
Atty.Galicinao. In November 2001, since part of the loan remained unpaid,
Atty. Galicinao went to Maddela'soffice and took the latters cash gift check
amounting to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) in her absence
and without her knowledge. There, Atty. Galicinao 'uttered
unsavory and humiliating words' against her. Onother occasions,
Atty. Galicinao collected from Maddela an amount equivalent to one-half
of the face valueof the checks she received as benefit from the Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF).

On 10 December 2002, the respondent went again to the office of

the complainant and demanded one-half of the value of the check
representing a cash gift of Five Thousand Pesos (P5, 000). Maddelarefused,
reasoning that it was a cash gift, not a JDF check and, therefore, not covered
by their agreement.

Maddela's refusal to part with the amount angered Atty. Galicinao,

prompting the latter to raise her voice, utter 'unsavory remarks' against
Maddela, and banged her fist on top of the Maddela's table, causing theglass
top of the table to break.

To further support her bid for the disbarment of Atty. Galiciano,

Maddela, through the affidavit of acertainMr.Rilloraza, alleged that
Atty. Galicinao is also guilty of notarizing documents outside the area of her
commission.

Maddela claimed that although Atty. Galicinao was not yet a lawyer,
she was issued anotarial commission and even notarized certain documents
outside of her commission.Maddela likewise alleged that despite
the death of Atty. Galicinaos husband, Atty. Galicinaocontinued to receive
and encashment for at least (3) three months checks corresponding to her
husband's salaries as Ex-OfficioSheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court of
Nueva Vizcaya

Maddela even pointed out that Atty.Galicinao continued to claim the

higher allowable deductions as a married individual despite the death of her
husband. Atty. Galiciano denied the allegations but with respect to the
documents that she notarized outsideof her notarial commission, she
reasoned that she did such for her relatives and she did not derive
any income from the transactions.
 In 2004, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted her report
andrecommendation. She stated that Atty. Galicinao was able to prove that
she was not the creditor of theMaddela and that Atty. Galicinao did not claim
her husband's salary and avail herself of the higher allowable tax deductions
even after his death.

However, she will be suspended for six (6) months for the acts
of notarizing outside the area of her notarial commission and obtaining the
JDF checks of the complainant from the cash clerk in violation of Supreme
Court Circular No. 27-2001.

On 16 April 2004, the Board of Governors of the IBP issued Resolution

No. XVI-2004-227 in CBD No. 03-1060, annulling and settling aside
commissioner Maalas recommendation dismissing theadministrative
complaint against Atty. Galicinao with respect to the charge of violating a
Supreme Court Circular for collecting a loan for which she acted as a
guarantor; and imposing upon the respondent thepenalty of reprimand for
her act of notarizing documents outside the area where she was
commissioned as anotary public. The said ruling was affirmed by the
Supreme Court with a modification as to the penalty.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Galicinao should be disciplined for having

notarized documents outside of hernotarial commission

HELD:

Notarization is invested with substantive public interest such that only

those who are qualified may act as notaries public.

We have declared on several occasions, that notarization is not

an empty, meaningless, routinely act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized
may act as notaries public. The protection of that
interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act
must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the
administrativeoffices in general. It must be underscored that the notarization
by a notary public converts a privatedocument into a public document,
making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the
authenticity thereof (Nunga v. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155, 160
[1999]).

Thus, we are not satisfied with respondent's explanation that she

notarized documents outside of the area of her notarial commission as a
favor to her relatives and for free. Whether the respondent derivedprofit from
her act of notarizing outside the area of her authority is of no moment. The
fact remains that shenotarized outside the area of her commission.
Considering, however, that her misconduct as a notary public was committed
while she was not yet a lawyer, she could not be disciplinarily dealt with
as a lawyer. Thepenalty that should be meted to her should, therefore, be
as a notary public before she was admitted to theBar. The penalty of fine
would be a sufficient sanction.

TERESITA D. SANTECO v. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE

FACTS:

An administrative complaintwas filed by Teresita D. Santeco against res

pondent Atty. Luna B. Avance for mishandling Civil Case No. 97-275, which
was filed before the RTC of Makati City. The result of such administrative
complaint was the suspension of Advance from the practice of law for five
years and ordered to return P3, 900 to her client after she was found guilty of
gross misconduct for abandoning her
client in bad faith and persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed
at her without any explanation for doing so.

However, while still suspended, Avance appeared in three cases as

Atty. LiezlTanglao as stated ina letter-report of Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar,
presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales. In a resolution, the Court
ordered Avance to comment on said letter-report. However, she failed to do
so. The Court then reiterated its order. Again, despite receipt of the two
resolutions, she still failed to comply.

Thus, the Court issued a resolution finding Avance guilty of indirect

contempt and ordering her to pay a fine amounting to P30, 000. It also
sternly warned her that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be
dealt with more severely. Despite due notice, she failed to pay the fine.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action or inaction of Atty. Avance is a ground for her
disbarment

HELD:

A lawyer who wilfully disobeys the lawful order of the court deserves
the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

It held that respondents conduct evidently fell short of what is

expected of her as an officer of the court as she obviously possesses a habit
of defying this Courts orders. She wilfully disobeyed this
Court when she continued her law practice despite the five-year suspension
order against her and evenmisrepresented herself to be another person in
order to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was twice ordered to
comment on her continued law practice while still suspended, nothing was
heard from herdespite receipt of two Resolutions form this Court. Neither did
she pay the P30, 000 fine imposed in the Resolution.

In repeatedly disobeying this Courts orders, respondent proved herself

unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent
to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of
an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment