Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERNANDO MARTIN O. PENA v. ATTY. LOLITO G. APARICIO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	Adm. Case No. 8108 2014-07-15	DANTE LA JIMENEZ v. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO SERENO, C.J.
We emphasize at the outset that the Court may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. Thus, a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.[16] By now, it is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.[17]
	AC. No. 9317 2014-06-04	ADELIA V. QUIACHON v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS SERENO, C.J.
The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.[16] There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.[17] Public interest is the primary objective. We explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[18] viz.: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of 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 deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven x x x. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges x x x.
	Adm. Case No. 6475 2013-01-30	FE A. YLAYA v. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT BRION, J.
We emphasize that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers,[47] not the trial of an action or a suit.
	AC. No. 7054 2009-12-04	CONRADO QUE v. ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA PER CURIAM
The respondent likewise violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,[21] as well as the rule against forum shopping, both of which are directed against the filing of multiple actions to attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure;[22] and add to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.[23]