Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7421 2007-10-10	ELISA V. VENTEREZ v. ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant lawyer involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.[27] In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the Court consisted of reprimand,[28] fine of five hundred pesos with warning,[29] suspension of three months,[30] six months[31] and even disbarment[32] in an aggravated case.
	AC. No. 3967 2003-09-03	ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. ATTY. WILFREDO OCA TINGA, J.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant attorney involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.[50] In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by this Court consisted of reprimand,[51] fine of five hundred pesos with warning,[52] suspension of three months,[53] six months,[54] and even disbarment in aggravated cases.[55]
	AC. No. 5474 2003-08-28	REDENTOR S. JARDIN v. ATTY. DEOGRACIAS VILLAR TINGA, J.
We can only echo our pronouncements in Basas v. Icawat,[11] to wit:Respondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 provides: