This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Lao v. Medel, we held that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one-year suspension from the practice of law. The same sanction was imposed on the respondent-lawyer in Rangwani v. Dino having been found guilty of gross misconduct for issuing bad checks in payment of a piece of property the title of which was only entrusted to him by the complainant.[19] | |||||
|
2012-08-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The foregoing cases illustrate that the Court is not bound to impose the penalty of disbarment in cases of gross misconduct and/or dishonesty, if in its appreciation of facts and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the penalty of suspension would be more commensurate.[41] "Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person."[42] In this case, we believe that the penalty of suspension of four years will provide Atty. Resurreccion "with enough time to ponder on and cleanse himself of his misconduct."[43] "While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end."[44] We note that there is no mention in the records of any previous or similar administrative case filed against herein respondent. | |||||