Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JONAR SANTIAGO v. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. No. 9000 2011-10-05	TOMAS P. TAN v. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Complainant now asks that respondent be disbarred. We find, however, that suspension from the practice of law is sufficient to discipline respondent. It is worth stressing that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Disbarment will be imposed as a penalty only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and the character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Where any lesser penalty can accomplish the end desired, disbarment should not be decreed.[16] In this case, the Court finds the penalty of suspension more appropriate but finds the recommended penalty of suspension for one year too severe. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that a suspension of six months is sufficient. After all, suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.[17]
	AC. No. 6962 2008-06-25	CHARLES B. BAYLON v. ATTY. JOSE A. ALMO QUISUMBING, J.
The importance attached to the act of notarization cannot be overemphasized. In Santiago v. Rafanan,[10] we explained,
	AC. No. 5281 2008-02-12	MANUEL L. LEE v. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO CORONA, J.
As the acknowledging officer of the contested will, respondent was required to faithfully observe the formalities of a will and those of notarization. As we held in Santiago v. Rafanan:[22]
	AC. NO. 6691 2007-04-27	ATTY. GEORGE C. BRIONES v. ATTY. JACINTO D. JIMENEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Respondent filed his Comment on April 6, 2005. He contends that when he assisted the Heirs in filing a criminal case against complainant, he was merely fulfilling his legal duty to take the necessary steps to protect the interests of his clients; that it cannot serve as basis for filing an administrative case against him.[12] Respondent further cites Santiago v. Rafanan[13] where the Court absolved the respondent lawyer from administrative liability in submitting an affidavit in a preliminary investigation in defense of his clients.
	AC. NO. 6854 2007-04-27	JUAN DULALIA v. ATTY. PABLO C. CRUZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Apropos is this Court's pronouncement in Santiago v. Rafanan:[29]