Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELICISIMO M. MONTANO v. INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7474 2014-09-09	PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID v. ATTY. JUAN S. DEALCA BERSAMIN, J.
On a final note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the first administrative complaint to be ever brought against Atty. Dealca. In Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines,[39] we reprimanded him for violating Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely. Accordingly, based on the penalties the Court imposed on erring lawyers found violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03,[40] and Canon 11, Rule 11.04[41] of the Code, we deem appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of law for a period one year.
	AC. No. 5438 2004-03-10	DAN JOEL V. LIM v. ATTY. EDILBERTO BARCELONA PER CURIAM
In Montano v. IBP,[25] this Court said that only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer may disbarment be imposed as a penalty. In the instant case, the Court is convinced that the evidence against respondent is clear and convincing. He is administratively liable for corrupt activity, deceit, and gross misconduct. As correctly held by the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, he should not only be suspended from the practice of law but disbarred.
	AC. No. 5081 2003-03-24	EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN QUISUMBING, J.
In Montano v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines,[24] we said that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. It should never be decreed where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired.