This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Respondent likewise showed gross ignorance of the law when he issued a Hold Departure Order requesting the BID to place petitioner in its Watchlist, completely contravening Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which provides that said Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.[21] Apropos is Tadlip v. Borres, Jr.,[22] where therein respondent, lawyer and provincial adjudicator, failed to apply the specific provisions of the 1994 New Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Arbitration Board (DARAB). The Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ruled that, since respondent became part of the quasi-judicial system of the government, his case may be likened to administrative cases of judges whose manner of deciding cases was also subject of administrative cases. | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, we take this occasion to remind the respondent of the high standards of conduct imposed upon lawyers in the judiciary. Lawyers in the government service are under an even greater obligation to observe the basic tenets of the legal profession because public office is a public trust.[20] They should be more circumspect in their adherence to their professional obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, for their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.[21] | |||||