Lawyerly

AC. No. 9116

2014-03-12

NESTOR B. FIGUERAS v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion.[22] The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading range from reprimand,[23] warning with fine,[24] suspension[25] and, in grave cases, disbarment.[26] In the present case, we find too harsh the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. Under the circumstances, we deem the penalty of suspension for one month from the practice of law to be more commensurate with the extent of respondent's violation.

AC. No. 7360

2012-07-24

ATTY. POLICARPIO I. CATALAN v. ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA

PER CURIAM

First, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by any interested person. There can be no doubt of the right of a citizen to bring to the attention of the proper authority acts and doings of public officers which a citizen feels are incompatible with the duties of the office and from which conduct the public might or does suffer undesirable consequences.[8] Section 1, Rule 139-B reads: Section 1. How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.

AC. No. 5859

2010-11-23

ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA

PER CURIAM

It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[10] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.[11] In Maligsa v. Cabanting,[12]we explained that the bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal profession should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

AC. No. 7084

2009-02-27

CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE RAMOS-VILLALON

BRION, J.

A lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to be truthful in all his dealings.[16] However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her client's opponent. A lawyer is his or her client's advocate; while duty-bound to utter no falsehood, an advocate is not obliged to build the case for his or her client's opponent.

ADM CASE No. 5364

2008-08-20

JUANITA MANAOIS v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

TINGA, J,

The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."[7] To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[8]

A C. No. 5033

2008-07-28

MARY JANE D. VELASCO v. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN

PER CURIAM

Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,[18] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[19] In Marcelo v. Javier,[20] we reminded the members of the legal profession that:A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.

AC. NO. 6573

2007-07-09

IGNACIO J. SALMINGO v. ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA

CARPIO MORALES, J.

x x x In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary proceeding, observance of due process, as in other JUDICIAL determinations, is imperative along with a presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.[24] (Underscoring supplied)

AC. NO. 7023

2006-03-30

BUN SIONG YAO v. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[8] Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any person most especially against a client or former client. As we stated in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.:[9]

ADM CASE NO. 5134

2005-12-14

TIRSO UYTENGSU III v. ATTY. JOSEPH M. BADUEL

TINGA, J.

In Marcelo v. Javier,[21] it was held that:In all cases the determination whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, mindful always of the fact that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary action and should be resorted to only in cases where the lawyer demonstrates an attitude or course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards. In cases of lighter offenses or of first delinquency, an order of suspension, which is correctional in nature, should be inflicted. In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary proceedings, observance of due process, as in other judicial determination, is imperative along with presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.[22] Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. The case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[23]

ADM CASE NO. 6595

2005-04-15

JOSEPH SAMALA v. ATTY. ANTONUITTI K. PALAÑA

AZCUNA, J.

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.[3] To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[4]

AC. No. 6492

2004-11-18

MELANIO L. ZORETA v. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.[20] Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting[21] that "[t]he bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession."[22] Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[23]

AC. No. 5081

2003-03-24

EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN

QUISUMBING, J.

Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."[20] The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[21] A lawyer can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the Court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.[22]

	AC. No. 9116 2014-03-12	NESTOR B. FIGUERAS v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
It has been stressed that the determination of whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion.[22] The penalties for a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading range from reprimand,[23] warning with fine,[24] suspension[25] and, in grave cases, disbarment.[26] In the present case, we find too harsh the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. Under the circumstances, we deem the penalty of suspension for one month from the practice of law to be more commensurate with the extent of respondent's violation.
	AC. No. 7360 2012-07-24	ATTY. POLICARPIO I. CATALAN v. ATTY. JOSELITO M. SILVOSA PER CURIAM
First, disbarment proceedings may be initiated by any interested person. There can be no doubt of the right of a citizen to bring to the attention of the proper authority acts and doings of public officers which a citizen feels are incompatible with the duties of the office and from which conduct the public might or does suffer undesirable consequences.[8] Section 1, Rule 139-B reads: Section 1. How Instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.
	AC. No. 5859 2010-11-23	ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA PER CURIAM
It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[10] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.[11] In Maligsa v. Cabanting,[12]we explained that the bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal profession should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. An attorney may be disbarred or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
	AC. No. 7084 2009-02-27	CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE RAMOS-VILLALON BRION, J.
A lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to be truthful in all his dealings.[16] However, this duty does not require that the lawyer advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her client's opponent. A lawyer is his or her client's advocate; while duty-bound to utter no falsehood, an advocate is not obliged to build the case for his or her client's opponent.
	ADM CASE No. 5364 2008-08-20	JUANITA MANAOIS v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE TINGA, J,
The Code of Professional Responsibility likewise mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession."[7] To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[8]
	A C. No. 5033 2008-07-28	MARY JANE D. VELASCO v. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN PER CURIAM
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,[18] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[19] In Marcelo v. Javier,[20] we reminded the members of the legal profession that:A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
	AC. NO. 6573 2007-07-09	IGNACIO J. SALMINGO v. ATTY. RODNEY K. RUBICA CARPIO MORALES, J.
x x x In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary proceeding, observance of due process, as in other JUDICIAL determinations, is imperative along with a presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.[24] (Underscoring supplied)
	AC. NO. 7023 2006-03-30	BUN SIONG YAO v. ATTY. LEONARDO A. AURELIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lawyers must conduct themselves, especially in their dealings with their clients and the public at large, with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach.[8] Lawyers cannot be allowed to exploit their profession for the purpose of exacting vengeance or as a tool for instigating hostility against any person most especially against a client or former client. As we stated in Marcelo v. Javier, Sr.:[9]
	ADM CASE NO. 5134 2005-12-14	TIRSO UYTENGSU III v. ATTY. JOSEPH M. BADUEL TINGA, J.
In Marcelo v. Javier,[21] it was held that:In all cases the determination whether an attorney should be disbarred or merely suspended for a period involves the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, mindful always of the fact that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary action and should be resorted to only in cases where the lawyer demonstrates an attitude or course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards. In cases of lighter offenses or of first delinquency, an order of suspension, which is correctional in nature, should be inflicted. In view of the nature and consequences of a disciplinary proceedings, observance of due process, as in other judicial determination, is imperative along with presumption of innocence in favor of the lawyer. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the complainant to overcome such presumption and establish his charges by clear preponderance of evidence.[22] Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. The case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[23]
	ADM CASE NO. 6595 2005-04-15	JOSEPH SAMALA v. ATTY. ANTONUITTI K. PALAÑA AZCUNA, J.
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that "a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.[3] To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.[4]
	AC. No. 6492 2004-11-18	MELANIO L. ZORETA v. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.[20] Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting[21] that "[t]he bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession."[22] Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[23]
	AC. No. 5081 2003-03-24	EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN QUISUMBING, J.
Time and again, we have stressed the settled principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that, "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."[20] The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[21] A lawyer can be deprived of his license for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the Court after giving him the opportunity to be heard.[22]

DOMINGO R. MARCELO v. ATTY. ADRIANO S. JAVIER