Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO B. ROA v. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 10952 2016-01-26	ENGEL PAUL ACA v. ATTY. RONALDO P. SALVADO PER CURIAM
Accordingly, the only issue in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is the respondent's fitness to remain as a member of the Bar. The Court's findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the parties may choose to file against each other.[16]
	AC. No. 10912 2016-01-19	PAULINA T. YU v. ATTY. BERLIN R. DELA CRUZ PER CURIAM
Anent the monetary demands made by complainant, the Court reiterates the rule that in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.[31] Thus, the Court is not concerned with the erring lawyer's civil liability for money received from his client in a transaction separate, distinct, and not intrinsically linked to his professional engagement. Accordingly, it cannot order respondent lawyer to make the payment for the subject jewelry he pawned, the value of which is yet to be determined in the appropriate proceeding.
	AC. No. 10240 2014-11-25	ESTRELLA R. SANCHEZ v. ATTY. NICOLAS C. TORRES PER CURIAM
Following the penalty imposed in a similar situation in A-1 Financial Services v. Valerio,[17] we deem it proper to adopt the penalty of two (2) years suspension in light of the amount involved and the brazen disregard by Atty. Torres of the Orders of the IBP-CBD on the filing of an answer and appearance in the hearing. We cannot sustain, however, the IBP's recommendation ordering respondent to return the amount of P2,200,000.00 to complainant. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the parties may choose to file against each other.[18]
	AC. No. 6732 2013-10-22	ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. PE BERSAMIN, J.
No lawyer should ever lose sight of the verity that the practice of the legal profession is always a privilege that the Court extends only to the deserving, and that the Court may withdraw or deny the privilege to him who fails to observe and respect the Lawyer's Oath and the canons of ethical conduct in his professional and private capacities. He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law not only for acts and omissions of malpractice and for dishonesty in his professional dealings, but also for gross misconduct not directly connected with his professional duties that reveal his unfitness for the office and his unworthiness of the principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him.[27] Verily, no lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed either in a professional or private capacity.[28] The test is whether the conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.[29]
	AC. No. 9000 2011-10-05	TOMAS P. TAN v. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Well entrenched in this jurisdiction is the rule that a lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[13] Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates all lawyers to uphold at all times the dignity and integrity of the legal profession. Lawyers are similarly required, under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code, not to engage in any unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct.