Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171036 2008-10-17	ADELA G. RAYMUNDO v. ERNESTO LUNARIA QUISUMBING, J.
On this score, we agree with respondents. The general rule is that once an issue has been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, it can no longer be controverted anew and should be finally laid to rest.[14] In this case, petitioners failed to address the issue on their solidary liability when they appealed to the Court of Appeals. They are now estopped to question that ruling. As to them, the issue on their liability is already valid and binding.
	AC. NO. 6501 (CBD CASE NOS. 03-1076 2006-08-31	ATTY. LEON L. ASA v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
In administrative cases against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as the motivation thereof.[38] In the case at bar, Asa and Oliveros failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that Castillo willfully and deliberately resorted to deceit and falsehood in filing the Motion to have the funds deposited at UCPB.
	AM No. P-02-1644 2004-11-11	ARNEL S. CRUZ v. ATTY. LUNINGNING Y. CENTRON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.[4]