Does prescription apply in disbarment proceedings?

It is settled that it does not.

The Supreme Court en banc ruled in Frias vs. Bautista-Lozada in 2006 that Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline is null and void. It was struck down for being inconsistent with the previous rulings of the Supreme Court. This was reiterated in Rian vs Icao (2008). However, the Supreme Court, Second Division in the case of Ienhardt vs Real (2012) opined,

"Anent respondent’s claim of prescription of the offense pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar Discipline, we agree with the Investigating Commissioner that the rule should be construed to mean two years from the date of discovery of the professional misconduct. To rule otherwise would cause injustice to parties who may have discovered the wrong committed to them only at a much later date. In this case, the complaint was filed more than three years after the commission of the act because it was only after the property was foreclosed that complainant discovered the SPA."

Although the above opinion gave the impression that the prescriptive period is back on the Rules, in my humble opinion, I still believe that prescription still does not apply in disbarment proceedings.