Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TOMAS P. TAN v. ATTY. HAIDE V. GUMBA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 9868 2015-04-22	ATTY. ALFREDO L. VILLAMOR v. ATTYS. E. HANS A. SANTOS BRION, J.
We stress that the main issue in disbarment cases is whether or not a lawyer has committed serious professional misconduct sufficient to cause disbarment. The test is whether the lawyer's conduct shows him or her to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor; or whether it renders him or her unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[10] The burden of proof rests upon the complainant; and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the complainant establishes the complaint with clearly preponderant evidence.[11]
	AC. No. 8261 2015-03-11	JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO BERSAMIN, 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 his conduct renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court.[20] 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. Failure to observe these tenets of the Code of Professional Responsibility exposes the lawyer to disciplinary sanctions as provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as amended, viz.:Section 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. — A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a wilful disobedience appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
	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. 6116 2012-08-01	ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON v. ATTY. MARIANO R. PEFIANCO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Nonetheless, while We rule that respondent should be sanctioned for his actions, We are minded that the power to disbar should be exercised with great caution and only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and as member of the bar,[16] or the misconduct borders on the criminal, or committed under scandalous circumstance,[17] which do not obtain here. Considering the circumstances of the case, We deem it appropriate that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year as recommended.