Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUSANA DE GUZMAN BUADO v. ATTY. EUFRACIO T. LAYAG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 10135 2014-01-15	EDGARDO AREOLA v. ATTY. MARIA VILMA MENDOZA REYES, J.
caution and only in those cases where the misconduct of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar is established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[24] The Court notes that when Atty. Mendoza made the remark "Iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon", she was not compelled by bad faith or malice. While her remark was inappropriate and unbecoming, her comment is not disparaging and reproachful so as to cause dishonor and disgrace to the Judiciary. In several administrative cases, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent's length of service, the respondent's acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family
	AC. NO. 5426 2007-04-04	CHITA PANTOJA-MUMAR v. ATTY. JANUARIO C. FLORES CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[15] Considering that this is the respondent's first administrative offense, the Court modifies the IBP's recommendation of a two-year suspension from the practice of law to one year.[16]
	AC. NO. 5996 2005-02-07	MARIO S. AMAYA v. ATTY. DELANO A. TECSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[14] Considering that the respondent in this case returned the money for litigation expenses to the complainant after the denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Court sees fit to reprimand the respondent for his actuations.