Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARILI C. RONQUILLO v. ATTY. HOMOBONO T. CEZAR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 10134 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES v. ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ MENDOZA, J.
Time and again, the Court has held that the practice of law is granted only to those of good moral character. The Bar maintains a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Thus, lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[20]
	AC. No. 10050 2013-12-03	VICTORIA C. HEENAN v. ATTY. ERLINDA ESPEJO VELASCO JR., J.
We, however, cannot sustain the IBP's recommendation ordering Atty. Espejo to return the money she borrowed from Victoria. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.[21] Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do not involve a trial of an action, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. The only question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Thus, this Court cannot rule on the issue of the amount of money that should be returned to the complainant.[22]
	AC. No. 8382 2010-04-21	ALFREDO B. ROA v. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO CARPIO, J.
Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyer's professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[12]
	AC. No. 5955 2009-09-08	JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA v. ATTY. GOERING G.C. PADERANGA PERALTA, J.
Based on the foregoing, the Court is more inclined to believe that when complainant and defendants-spouses failed to reach an agreement, respondent came forward as a third-party claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said properties. He, therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[23] which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Under this rule, conduct has been construed not to pertain exclusively to the performance of a lawyer's professional duties.[24] In previous cases,[25] the Court has held that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor; or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.