Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO SIMBOL Y MANUEL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7505 2008-10-24	WALTER WILKIE v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pertinently in Rangwani v. Dino,[20] citing Bolivar v. Simbol,[21] the Court ruled that the discipline of lawyers cannot be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of charges. We ratiocinated, thus:It is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this settlement operated as an absolution and remission of his offense. This view of the case ignores the fact that the exercise of the power is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. He had acted in clear disregard of his duty as an attorney at the bar, and without "good fidelity" to his client. The public had rights which Mrs. Curtis could not thus settle or destroy. The unworthy act had been fully consummated.[22]
	AC. No. 5454 2004-11-23	CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, in Bolivar v. Simbol,[20] the Court, citing In re Davies,[21] ruled that the discipline of lawyers cannot be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of charges:It is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this settlement operated as an absolution and remission of his offense. This view of the case ignores the fact that the exercise of the power is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. He had acted in clear disregard of his duty as an attorney at the bar, and without "good fidelity" to his client. The public had rights which Mrs. Curtis could not thus settle or destroy. The unworthy act had been fully consummated.
	AM No. P-99-1285 2000-10-04	ATTY. TERESITA REYES-DOMINGO v. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
With regard to the recommended denial of the deferment sought by respondent, the governing rule on this point states in no uncertain terms that "no investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same."[19] Any person may bring to the Court's attention the misconduct of any lawyer, and action will usually be taken regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant if the facts proven so warrant; the power to discipline lawyers, as officers of the court, may not be cut short by a compromise and withdrawal of charges.[20]