This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Similarly, we held in Virgo v. Amorin,[20] viz:While it is true that disbarment proceedings look into the worthiness of a respondent to remain as a member of the bar, and need not delve into the merits of a related case, the Court, in this instance, however, cannot ascertain whether Atty. Amorin indeed committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the Virgo Mansion without going through the factual matters that are subject of the aforementioned civil cases, x x x. As a matter of prudence and so as not to preempt the conclusions that will be drawn by the court where the case is pending, the Court deems it wise to dismiss the present case without prejudice to the filing of another one, depending on the final outcome of the civil case.[21] | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The issue of ownership of real property must be settled in a judicial, not administrative, case. In Virgo v. Amorin,[18] the Court dismissed without prejudice a complaint against a lawyer because it could not determine his fitness to remain a member of the Bar without delving into issues which are proper subjects of judicial action. The Court held that: While it is true that disbarment proceedings look into the worthiness of a respondent to remain as a member of the bar, and need not delve into the merits of a related case, the Court, in this instance, however, cannot ascertain whether Atty. Amorin indeed committed acts in violation of his oath as a lawyer concerning the sale and conveyance of the Virgo Mansion without going through the factual matters that are subject of the aforementioned civil cases, particularly Civil Case No. 01-45798.[19] | |||||