Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANIEL S. AQUINO v. ATTY. MARIA LOURDES VILLAMAR-MANGAOANG

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 9698 2013-11-13	ROLANDO E. CAWALING v. NAPOLEON M. MENESE PERALTA, J.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar.[12] This Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated.[13] In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.[14] This complainants failed to do.
	AC. No. 7547 2009-09-04	GREGORY U. CHAN v. NLRC COMMISSIONER ROMEO L. GO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes his case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.[34]
	AC. NO. 6850 2006-07-27	ATTY. MINIANO B. DELA CRUZ v. ATTY. TEODORICO N. DIESMOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A lawyer enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved.[20] The case against respondent must therefore be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar.[21] While courts will not hold back in meting out the proper disciplinary punishment upon lawyers who fail to live up to their sworn duties, they will also protect them from unjust accusations of dissatisfied litigants.[22] This Court will not hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusations against whom are not indubitably proven.[23] Indeed, the duty of the Court towards members of the bar is not only limited to the administration of discipline to those found culpable of misconduct but also to the protection of the reputation of those frivolously or maliciously charged.[24] In the absence of convincing or clearly preponderant evidence, the complaint for disbarment should be dismissed.[25]