This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved, and that as an officer of the court, he has performed his duties in accordance with his oath.[18] In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.[19] Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated.[20] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner should not be faulted when he wrote "1987-1991" in his PDS under "Inclusive Dates of Attendance" since he did attend the school during the given period and in fact graduated on March 24, 1991. It is an honest mistake of fact induced by no fault of his own and excuses him from the legal consequences of his act. Ignorantia facti excusat.[37] To stress, petitioner was asked mainly about the inclusive dates of his attendance in SLU. The official transcript of records was issued on August 8, 1994.[38] Understandably, it does not show the circumstances that led petitioner in giving the subject answers in his application for PBET and PDS. The transcript of records should not be made the basis for holding petitioner liable for dishonesty. | |||||