Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEONCIO SANTOCILDES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. NO. 6517 2006-12-06	MARCOS V. PRIETO v. ATTY. OSCAR B. CORPUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust.[4] Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[5] We cannot countenance complainant's act of misleading this Court into believing that respondent judge was still conducting the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1518-BG. What is evident is that even complainant was well aware of respondent judge's inhibition therefrom. The respondent judge, in fact, issued an Order dated 23 January 2004 inhibiting himself from the case.
	GR NO. 169517 2006-03-14	ROGELIO A. TAN v. BENEDICTO M. BALAJADIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In several cases,[10] we have ruled that the unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contempt and the acts are punished because they are an affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that intent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.[11]
	AM NO. P-05-2059 2005-08-19	ATTY. AUDIE C. ARNADO v. EDILBERTO R. SUARIN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The practice of law is a sacred and noble profession. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the nature of a public trust.[38] Thus, a lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes, as the same constitutes serious transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[39]
	B M No. 1036 2003-06-10	DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE v. EDWIN L. RANA CARPIO, J.
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not taken his oath and signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7]