Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSEFINA ROYONG v. ATTY. AKISTON OBLENA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. NO. 6313 2006-09-07	CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG v. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL TINGA, J.
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege.[21] As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community.[22] The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.[23] A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[24] It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act that shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.[25]
	AC. NO. 6010 2006-08-28	ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Possession of such moral character as requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice must be continuous. Otherwise, "membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral conduct."[22]
	AC. NO. 6697 2006-07-25	ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ v. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA PER CURIAM
Disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court and to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[34] The statutory enunciation of the grounds for disbarment on suspension is not to be taken as a limitation on the general power of courts to suspend or disbar a lawyer. The inherent power of the court over its officers cannot be restricted.[35]
	AC. No. 6486 2004-09-22	EMMA T. DANTES v. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES PER CURIAM
"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." The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined 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.[22] To be the basis of disciplinary action, the lawyer's conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree[23] or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.[24]
	AC. No. 4838 2003-07-29	EMILIO GRANDE v. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The loss of moral character of a lawyer for any reason whatsoever shall warrant her suspension or disbarment,[10] because it is important that members of the legal brotherhood must conform to the highest standards of morality.[11] Any wrongdoing which indicates moral unfitness for the profession, whether it be professional or non-professional, justifies disciplinary action. Thus, a lawyer may be disciplined for evading payment of a debt validly incurred. Such conduct is unbecoming and does not speak well of a member of the bar, for a lawyer's professional and personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond reproach and above suspicion.[12]