Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELICITAS BERBANO v. ATTY. WENCESLAO BARCELONA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AC. No. 8253 2011-03-15	ERLINDA R. TAROG v. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT PER CURIAM
The Code of Professional Responsibility demands the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with the moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their fiduciary relationship.[25] In particular, Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
	AC. No. 6166 2009-10-02	MARIA EARL BEVERLY C. CENIZA v. ATTY. VIVIAN G. RUBIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Complainant seeks the disbarment of respondent from the practice of law for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law and for falsification of public document. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[5]
	AC. No. 7084 2009-02-27	CONRADO G. FERNANDEZ v. ATTY. MARIA ANGELICA P. DE RAMOS-VILLALON BRION, J.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant.[22] Considering the gravity of the penalty of disbarment or suspension as a member of the Bar, a lawyer may only be disbarred or suspended if there is clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof that he or she committed transgressions defined by the rules as grounds to strip him or her of his professional license.[23]
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment or suspension proceedings.[57]
	AC. NO. 5395 2006-09-19	ORLANDO ANGELO A. SANTOS v. VS.ATTY. MA. VIVIANE CACHO-CALICDAN TINGA, J.
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Nonetheless, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution.[15] In disbarment proceedings, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, the burden of which rests upon the complainant.[16] Only a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar will warrant disbarment.[17]
	GR NO. 121404 2006-05-03	ANICETO G. SALUDO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The settled rule is that criminal and civil cases are different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa.[15] In Berbano v. Barcelona,[16] it was held that:... Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu propio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney ....
	AC. NO. 6705 2006-03-31	RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO v. ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO CARPIO, J.
Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official duties."[43] A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting interests."[44] However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists.[45] Moreover, considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[46]
	ADM CASE NO. 6542 2005-09-30	MARIA CIELO B. SUZUKI v. ATTY. ERWIN L. TIAMSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the issues of whether or not complainant had indeed made payments amounting to an aggregate sum of P1,352,500.00; if these payments were made, whether they were intended as part of the purchase price for the subject property; and, whether these payments should be properly deducted from the original purchase price of P2,150,000.00, are matters that should be properly resolved in a judicial proceeding separate and distinct from the present case. The settled rule is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa.[28] In this light, we refer to this Court's ruling in Berbano vs. Barcelona,[29] citing In re Almacen,[30] where it was held that:Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu propio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.[31]