This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Other acts that this court has found violative of Canon 7, Rule 7.03 are: engaging in a scuffle inside court chambers;[56] openly doubting paternity of his own son;[57] hurling invectives at a Clerk of Court;[58] harassing occupants of a property;[59] using intemperate language;[60] and engaging in an extramarital affair.[61] | |||||
|
2015-11-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In other words, the respondent's denial is a negative pregnant, a denial coupled with the admission of substantial facts in the pleading responded to which are not squarely denied. Stated otherwise, a negative pregnant is a form of negative expression which carries with it an affirmation or at least an implication of some kind favorable to the adverse party. Where a fact is alleged with qualifying or modifying language and the words of the allegation as so qualified or modified are literally denied, it has been held that the qualifying circumstance alone is denied while the fact itself is admitted.[20] It is clear from Atty. Dabon's Comment that his denial only pertained as to the existence of a forced illicit relationship. Without a categorical denial thereof, he is deemed to have admitted his consensual affair with Sonia. | |||||
|
2015-09-08 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Guevarra v. Eala, respondent Atty. Eala was disbarred because he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law, by having an extramarital affair with the wife of the complainant. In doing so, he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer.[47] | |||||
|
2012-08-01 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with whom he begot four children notwithstanding that his moral character as well as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll of Attorneys has been assailed. The settled rule is that betrayal of the marital vow of fidelity or sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.[13] Consequently, We find no reason to disturb the IBP's finding that respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath[14] and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." | |||||
|
2011-12-12 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Respondent's act of having an affair with his client's wife manifested his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. It showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the ethics of his profession.[11] Likewise, he violated the trust and confidence reposed on him by complainant which in itself is prohibited under Canon 17[12] of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Undeniably, therefore, his illicit relationship with Ma. Elena amounts to a disgraceful and grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action from the Court.[13] Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney may be disbarred or suspended from his office by the Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, among others. | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| That, as reflected in the immediately-quoted Resolution in the criminal complaint against respondent, his therein co-respondent corroborated the testimonies of complainant's witnesses, and that the allegations against him remain unrebutted, sufficiently prove the charges against him by clearly preponderant evidence, the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.[20] | |||||