Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. LEON L. ASA v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 10628 2015-07-01	MAXIMINO NOBLE III v. ATTY. ORLANDO O. AILES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Indulging in offensive personalities in the course of judicial proceedings, as in this case, constitutes unprofessional conduct which subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.[27] While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.[28] The Court has consistently reminded the members of the bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party. Considering the circumstances, it is glaringly clear how Orlando transgressed the CPR when he maligned Maximino to his client.[29]
	GR No. 183014 2013-08-07	LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Pending resolution of her motion, Atty. Fria filed a Manifestation with Motion[17] dated November 17, 2006, stating that the Court had rendered a Decision in the case of Reyes v. Balde II (Reyes)[18] an offshoot of Civil Case No. 03-110 wherein it was held that Branch 203 had no jurisdiction over the foregoing civil case.[19] In response, The Law Firm filed its Comment/Opposition,[20] contending that Atty. Fria already committed the crime of Open Disobedience 119 days before the Reyes ruling was rendered and hence, she remains criminally liable for the afore-stated charge.
	GR No. 183014 2013-08-07	LAW FIRM OF CHAVEZ MIRANDA v. ATTY. JOSEJINA C. FRIA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In an Omnibus Order[21] dated January 25, 2007, the MTC ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 46400 for lack of probable cause. It found that aside from the fact that Atty. Fria is a judicial officer, The Law Firm failed to prove the existence of the other elements of the crime of Open Disobedience.[22] In particular, the second element of the crime, i.e., that there is a judgment, decision, or order of a superior authority made within the scope of its jurisdiction and issued with all legal formalities, unlikely existed since the Court already declared as null and void the entire proceedings in Civil Case No. 03-110 due to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, the MTC opined that such nullification worked retroactively to warrant the dismissal of the case and/or acquittal of the accused at any stage of the proceedings.[23]
	AC. No. 8158 2010-02-24	ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON v. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD BRION, J.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is preponderance of evidence which the complainant has the burden to discharge.[8] We fully considered the evidence presented and we are fully satisfied that the complainant's evidence, as outlined above, fully satisfies the required quantum of proof in proving Atty. Macalalad's negligence.
	AC. No. 4947 2007-06-07	ROSA YAP-PARAS v. ATTY. JUSTO PARAS GARCIA, J.
Given the above, the Court takes this opportunity to remind the parties in the instant case, as well petitioner-movant's counsels, to avoid further squabbles and unnecessary filing of administrative cases against each other. An examination of the records reveals a pervasive atmosphere of animosity between Atty. Paras and petitioner's counsels as evidenced by the number of administrative cases between them. It is well to stress that mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive sympathy from this Court.[13] Lawyers should treat each other with courtesy, fairness, candor and civility.[14]
	GR No. 168384 2006-08-07	CHARLES BERNARD H. REYES DOING BUSINESS UNDER NAME v. ANTONIO YULO BALDE II YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Meanwhile, it appears that the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203 rendered judgment on July 29, 2005[17] in Civil Case No. 03-110 in favor of herein petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
	AC. NO. 6057 2006-06-27	PETER T. DONTON v. ATTY. EMMANUEL O. TANSINGCO CARPIO, J.
In his Comment dated 19 August 2003, respondent claimed that complainant filed the disbarment case against him upon the instigation of complainant's counsel, Atty. Bonifacio A. Alentajan,[7] because respondent refused to act as complainant's witness in the criminal case against Stier and Maggay. Respondent admitted that he "prepared and notarized" the Occupancy Agreement and asserted its genuineness and due execution.