This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-08-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| While delay in the processing of documents normally occurs, it was inexcusable and out of the ordinary for respondent to allow a period of more than two years to lapse before acting on the motion. This omission amounts to gross misconduct as the unnecessary delay has caused prejudice to complainant. As defined, gross misconduct is any inexcusable, shameful or flagrant unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned with the administration of justice; i.e., conduct prejudicial to the rights of the parties or to the right determination of the cause.[26] | |||||
|
2015-08-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Herein respondent was already suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months in another case, Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr.,[39] in which he was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. For that offense, he was warned that the commission of the same or a similar offense in the future would result in the imposition of a more severe penalty. In light of respondent's previous suspension from the practice of law in an earlier administrative case as above-mentioned, the recommendation of the IBP Board to disbar respondent is only proper. | |||||