This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Bengco v. Bernardo,[34] we ruled that it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and to save courts of justice from persons unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. | |||||
|
2015-08-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Disbarment proceeding is separate and distinct from a criminal action filed against a lawyer even if they involve the same set of facts.[9] A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, the acquittal does not necessarily exculpate one administratively.[10] | |||||
|
2015-03-24 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| This ruling was reiterated in the more recent case of Bengco v. Bernardo,[26] where the Court stated that putting a prescriptive period on administrative cases involving members of the bar would only serve to embolden them to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. | |||||