This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-09-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis[51] and they belong to a class of their own.[52] They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer.[53] They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.[54] | |||||
|
2006-03-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is undisputed that respondent admitted[8] having received the US$20,000 from complainant as shown by his signatures in the petty cash vouchers[9] and receipts[10] he prepared, on the false representation that that it was needed in complainant's application for visa with the BID. Respondent denied he misappropriated the said amount and interposed the defense that he delivered it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in their application for visa in the BID.[11] Such defense remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit evidence on the matter. While he claims that Atty. Mendoza already died, he did not present the death certificate of said Atty. Mendoza. Worse, the action of respondent in shifting the blame to someone who has been naturally silenced by fate, is not only impudent but downright ignominious. When the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he deny the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him.[12] He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him. In the case at bar, respondent clearly fell short of his duty. Records show that even though he was given the opportunity to answer the charges and controvert the evidence against him in a formal investigation, he failed, without any plausible reason, to appear several times whenever the case was set for reception of his evidence despite due notice. | |||||