Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE FIRST INDORSEMENT FROM RAUL M. GONZALEZ DATED 16 MARCH 1988 REQUESTING JUSTICE MARCELO B. FERNAN TO COMMENT ON AN ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. 10-7-17-SC 2011-02-08	IN MATTER OF CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM PER CURIAM
Certain educational institutions of course assume different norms in its application. For instance, the Loyola Schools Code of Academic Integrity ordains that "plagiarism is identified not through intent but through the act itself. The objective act of falsely attributing to one's self what is not one's work, whether intentional or out of neglect, is sufficient to conclude that plagiarism has occurred. Students who plead ignorance or appeal to lack of malice are not excused."[3]
	AC. No. 7732 2009-03-30	RODANTE D. MARCOLETA v. RESURRECCION Z. BORRA CARPIO MORALES, J.
At the outset, the Court, guided by its pronouncements in Jarque v. Ombudsman,[17] In Re: Raul M. Gonzales[18] and Cuenco v. Fernan,[19] has laid down the rule that an impeachable officer[20] who is a member of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first being impeached. Complainant's availment of Section 1 (1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution to skirt this rule is specious.
	AM No. 09-2-19-SC 2009-02-24	IN RE: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO v. NOGRALES PER CURIAM
That Justice Reyes was an impeachable officer when the investigation started is of no moment. The rule prohibiting the institution of disbarment proceedings against an impeachable officer who is required by the Constitution to be a member of the bar as a qualification in office applies only during his or her tenure and does not create immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other supposed violations. [280] Once the said impeachable officer is no longer in office because of his removal, resignation, retirement or permanent disability, the Court may proceed against him or her and impose the corresponding sanctions for misconduct committed during his tenure, pursuant to the Court's power of administrative supervision over members of the bar. Provided that the requirements of due process are met, the Court may penalize retired members of the Judiciary for misconduct committed during their incumbency. Thus, in Cañada v. Suerte, [281] this Court ordered the disbarment of a retired judge for misconduct committed during his incumbency as a judge.