This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In this regard, we note that this is not the first instance that Lokin has been held to account for unethical conduct as a member of the bar. In the Decision dated December 14, 2005,[48] this court suspended him from the practice of law for three (3) months for violating Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[49] and representing conflicting interests. In the same Decision, he was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. It appears that Lokin has not mended his ways. | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In the foregoing light, the Court finds the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months to be more appropriate taking into consideration the following factors: first, respondent is a first time offender; second, it is undisputed that respondent merely accommodated Maricar's request out of gratis to temporarily represent her only during the June 16 and July 14, 2006 hearings due to her lawyer's unavailability; third, it is likewise undisputed that respondent had no knowledge that the late Antonio had any other heirs aside from Maricar whose consent he actually acquired (albeit shortly after his first appearance as counsel for and in behalf of Emilio), hence, it can be said that he acted in good faith; and fourth, complainants admit that respondent did not acquire confidential information from the Heirs of Antonio nor did he use against them any knowledge obtained in the course of his previous employment, hence, the said heirs were not in any manner prejudiced by his subsequent engagement with Emilio. Notably, in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, Jr.,[36] the Court similarly imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three months to the counsel therein who represented parties whose interests are hostile to his other clients in another case. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 139-B[24] of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the IBP upon the verified complaint of any person. Accordingly, we held in Navarro v. Meneses III, [25] as reiterated in Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, [26] that:The argument of respondent that complainant has no legal personality to sue him is unavailing. Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides that proceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu propio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. The evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended sanctions. (Emphasis ours) | |||||