Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ANTONIO AND NORMA SORIANO v. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 4955 2011-09-12	ANTONIO CONLU v. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA VELASCO JR., J.
In Heirs of Tiburcio F. Ballesteros, Sr. v. Apiag,[19] the Court penalized a lawyer who failed to file a pre-trial brief and other pleadings, such as position papers, leading to the dismissal of the case with six months suspension. In Soriano v. Reyes,[20] We meted a one-year suspension on a lawyer for inexcusable negligence, the latter having failed to file a pre-trial brief leading to the dismissal of the case and failure to prosecute in another case, and omitting to apprise complainant of the status of the two cases with assurance of his diligent attention to them.
	AC. No. 6121 2009-07-31	TRINIDAD H. CAMARA v. ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY REYES NACHURA, J.
The alleged compromise between complainant and respondent is not enough to exonerate the latter from the present disciplinary case. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of the interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of negligence has been duly proved.[9]
	AC. No. 7027 2009-01-30	TANU REDDI v. ATTY. DIOSDADO C. SEBRIO PER CURIAM
The Court is mindful that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, and only for the most imperative reasons 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.[43] If the practice of law, however, is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them.[44] The requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.[45]
	AC. No. 4515 2008-07-14	CECILIA A. AGNO v. ATTY. MARCIANO J. CAGATAN. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We find the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years by the IBP Board of Governors to be too harsh considering that this is respondent's first administrative offense. It is settled that the appropriate penalty which the Court may impose on an errant lawyer depends on the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the surrounding facts. [43] Accordingly, for employing deceit and misrepresentation in his personal dealings as well as for issuing a worthless check, we rule and so hold that the penalty of suspension for one (1) year and one (1) month from the practice of law is sufficient to be meted out to respondent.
	AC. No. 7747 2008-07-14	CATHERINE v. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAÑA PER CURIAM
The fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving the same set of facts is still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings. [18] Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.[19] Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law.[20] The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.[21]
	AC. NO. 4306 2007-03-28	REMBERTO C. KARA-AN v. ATTY. REYNALDO A. PINEDA NACHURA, J.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe - such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine - would accomplish the end desired.[8]