Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	AC. No. 7505 2008-10-24	WALTER WILKIE v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pertinently in Rangwani v. Dino,[20] citing Bolivar v. Simbol,[21] the Court ruled that the discipline of lawyers cannot be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of charges. We ratiocinated, thus:It is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this settlement operated as an absolution and remission of his offense. This view of the case ignores the fact that the exercise of the power is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. He had acted in clear disregard of his duty as an attorney at the bar, and without "good fidelity" to his client. The public had rights which Mrs. Curtis could not thus settle or destroy. The unworthy act had been fully consummated.[22]
	AC. NO. 5542 2006-07-20	DAYAN STA. ANA CHRISTIAN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. NAPOLEON A. ESPIRITU CALLEJO, SR., J.
We note that respondent failed to appear before the IBP Investigating Commissioner to explain his actions, much less present his defense. In Rangwani v. Diño,[18] we ruled that it is not enough for a member of the bar to deny the charges:Quite conspicuously, despite the opportunities accorded to respondent to refute the charges against him, he failed to do so or even offer a valid explanation. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that respondent has presented any countervailing evidence to meet the charges against him. His nonchalance does not speak well of him as it reflects his utter lack of respect towards the public officers who were assigned to investigate the cases. On the contrary, respondent's comments only markedly admitted complainant's accusations. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him. He must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. These, respondent miserably failed to do.[19]