This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We also note Atty. Torres' conduct in the course of the proceedings where he repeatedly asked for extensions of time to file an answer and a motion for reconsideration, which he failed to submit, and his failure to attend the disciplinary hearings set by the IBP do not speak well of his standing as a lawyer. In Ngayan v. Tugade,[14] we ruled that "[a lawyer's] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Ngayan v. Tugade,[11] we ruled that "[a lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| It is a well-known rule that in proceedings before administrative bodies, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not binding.[24] The important consideration is that both parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard and they availed themselves of it to present their respective positions on the matter in dispute.[25] It must likewise be noted that under Section 2, Rule 1[26] of the SSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the rules of evidence prevailing in the courts of law shall not be controlling. In the case at bar, the existence of a prior | |||||