This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-03-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We note that in 1976 at the hearings before the OSG, complainant Manalang declared he was already 58 years old,[25] while complainant Cirillo stated that he was 64 years of age.[26] A quarter of century has since passed. It is true that a disciplinary action involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance, since it is undertaken solely for the public welfare, and the attorney-at-law is called to task mainly to answer to this Court for his conduct as an officer of the court.[27] Nevertheless, we must stress that disciplinary action against a member of the bar involves the public interest, and it should be resolved with dispatch.[28] Moreover, we note that respondent's clients in the instant case were poor working men. They were made to wait long for their money, by their very own counsel, contrary to the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. This is contrary to all ethical principles that members of the bar are supposed to uphold. Thus, we find no hesitance in imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension. However, this is the first case on record against him, a fact which could be taken into account by way of mitigation. Considering further the amount involved, the penalty of six (6) months suspension appears to us in order. | |||||