This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Regrettably, the conduct of respondent gave cause for the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his participation in the Kevlar case and the integrity of our courts of justice. Before this Court, even prior to the commencement of administrative investigation, respondent was less than candid. In his letter to the Chief Justice where he vehemently denied having attended parties or social events hosted by Napoles, he failed to mention that he had in fact visited Napoles at her office. Far from being a plain omission, we find that respondent deliberately did not disclose his social calls to Napoles. It was only when Luy and Sula testified before the Senate and named him as the "contact" of Napoles in the Sandiganbayan, that respondent mentioned of only one instance he visited Napoles ("This is the single occasion that Sula was talking about in her supplemental affidavit x x x"[27]). | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence.[64] Thus, at most, petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALN was accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail. | |||||
|
2006-01-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public. The harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest. As a lawyer, respondent is deemed to know the law, especially B. P. Blg. 22. By issuing checks in violation of the provisions of this law, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. In Camus v. Civil Service Board of Appeals, [4] we defined misconduct as follows:Misconduct has been defined as "wrong or improper conduct;" and "gross" has been held to mean "flagrant; shameful" (Webster). This Court once held that the word misconduct implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. In Lizaso v. Amante, [5] we held that a lawyer may be disciplined not only for malpractice in connection with his profession, but also for gross misconduct outside of his professional capacity, thus: | |||||