Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Board of Governors that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months as a lesson for him to change his ways. An indefinite suspension is not recommended because it has been gathered from complainant herself that respondent supports himself through the practice of law - which would be cruel for us to curtail at this time when he is already advanced in age - the penalty of three (3) months suspension and reco…
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to the Board of Governors that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) months as a lesson for him to change his ways. An indefinite suspension is not recommended because it has been gathered from complainant herself that respondent supports himself through the practice of law - which would be cruel for us to curtail at this time when he is already advanced in age - the penalty of three (3) months suspension and recording of such penalty in his record being sufficient to berate him as to his lack of responsibility as evidenced by his abandonment of the children. [Report and Recommendation rendered by Commissioner Vicente Q. Roxas] On January 27, 1996, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XII-96-43 adopting and approving the Commission report aforementioned. While the Court concurs with the inculpatory findings of the IBP on the charge of abandonment, it cannot bring itself to agree that respondent is liable only for that offense. As it were, the charge for gross immoral conduct has sufficiently been proven. Following established jurisprudence, respondent deserves to be disbarred. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides: Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct: CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. As this Court often reminds members of the bar, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Good moral character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession, but it must also remain intact in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because "vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all." [5] Immoral conduct has been described as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community. To be the basis of disciplinary action, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to virtually constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to
A.C. No. 11104 - ROGELIO PASAMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LIBERATO TENEZA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 11104
CaseA.C. No. 7353 - NELSON P. VALDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 7353
CaseA.C. No. 9226 (Formerly CBD 06-1749) - MA. CECILIA CLARISSA C. ADVINCULA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LEONARDO C. ADVINCULA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.C. No. 9226