This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In an Order dated August 7, 2002, Judge Barillo resolved[17] to deny the above-stated motions of Aragones. As regards the suspension of Lasola's counsel, Atty. Paras, Judge Barillo quoted in his Order the fallo of the Decision of the Court dated October 18, 2000 in A.C. No. 5333, which reads: In the light of the foregoing, respondent [Atty. Paras] is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for SIX (6) MONTHS on the charge of falsifying his wife's signature in bank documents and other related loan instruments; and for ONE (1) YEAR from the practice of law on the charges of immorality and abandonment of his own family, the penalties to be served simultaneously. Let notice of this decision be spread in respondent's record as an attorney, and notice of the same served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all the courts concerned. (Emphasis ours.) | |||||
|
2004-08-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction. The power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, for only the most imperative reasons,[18] and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.[19] Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine - would accomplish the end desired.[20] In the instant case, what we seek to exact from the respondent is strict compliance and fidelity with his duties to his clients. Accordingly, we agree with the recommendation of the IBP Investigating Commissioner that suspension, rather than disbarment, of respondent would suffice. In our view, however, such suspension should be indefinite, subject to further orders by this Court. | |||||