Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AC. No. 10868 2016-01-26	CHERYL E. VASCO-TAMARAY v. ATTY. DEBORAH Z. DAQUIS PER CURIAM
Other acts that this court has found violative of Canon 7, Rule 7.03 are: engaging in a scuffle inside court chambers;[56] openly doubting paternity of his own son;[57] hurling invectives at a Clerk of Court;[58] harassing occupants of a property;[59] using intemperate language;[60] and engaging in an extramarital affair.[61]
	AC. No. 6056 2015-09-09	FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA v. ATTYS. JUAN B. MENDOZA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.[26] For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[27]
	AC. No. 7314 2015-08-25	MARY ANN T. FLORES v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR PER CURIAM
Without a doubt, a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalties, including suspension and disbarment.[32] These penalties are imposed with great caution, because they are the most severe forms of disciplinary action and their consequences are beyond repair.[33] Disbarment, in particular, may be imposed 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 as a member of the bar.[34]
	AC. No. 7314 2015-08-25	MARY ANN T. FLORES v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR PER CURIAM
Without a doubt, a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalties, including suspension and disbarment.[32] These penalties are imposed with great caution, because they are the most severe forms of disciplinary action and their consequences are beyond repair.[33] Disbarment, in particular, may be imposed 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 as a member of the bar.[34]
	AC. No. 7314 2015-08-25	MARY ANN T. FLORES v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR PER CURIAM
In Maligsa v. Cabanting,[35] the respondent lawyer was disbarred after the Court: found out that he had notarized a forged deed of quitclaim. The penalty of disbarment was imposed after considering that he was previously suspended from the practice of law for six months on the ground that he had purchased his client's property while it was still the subject of a pending certiorari proceeding.[36]
	AC. No. 7297 2009-09-29	IMELDA BIDES-ULASO v. ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA BERSAMIN, J.
Being a lawyer commissioned as a notary, the respondent was mandated to discharge with fidelity the sacred duties appertaining to her notarial office. Such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, she could not disregard the requirements and solemnities of the Notarial Law.[27] It was emphatically her primary duty as a lawyer-notary to obey the laws of the land and to promote respect for the law and legal processes.[28] She was expected to be in the forefront in the observance and maintenance of the rule of law. She ought to have remembered that a graver responsibility was placed upon her shoulders by virtue of her being a lawyer.[29]
	AC. NO. 6712 2006-02-06	CRISANTA JIMENEZ v. ATTY. JOEL JIMENEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The long-settled rule is that the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or carry with it the relief from administrative liability.[12] The quantum of evidence needed in a criminal case is different from that required in an administrative case. In the former, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed;[13] while the latter, substantial evidence,[14] defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,[15] is enough. However, if the complainant fails to meet the required standard or to establish his/her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence[16] as in this case, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in 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.[17]
	AC. No. 5858 2003-12-11	ROGELIO R. SANTOS v. ATTY. RODOLFO C. BELTRAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In essence, complainant seeks the disbarment of the respondent for allegedly notarizing a Deed of Donation without the affiants personally appearing before him. Indeed, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed 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 as a member of the bar.[14] Corollary thereto, gross misconduct is defined as "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment."[15]