This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-23 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, for respondent's misconduct, the Investigating Commissioner recommended respondent's suspension for a period of three (3) months, guided by Supreme Court rulings in analogous cases, viz: Sanchez v. Somoso,[3] where the lawyer was suspended for six (6) months for having issued personal checks from a closed bank account and subsequently refused to pay for his medical expenses despite demand after the checks were dishonored; Constantino v. Saludares,[4] where the lawyer was suspended for three (3) months for his unwarranted refusal to pay a personal loan despite demand; and Lizaso v. Amante,[5] where the lawyer was suspended indefinitely for his failure to return and account for the money delivered to him for investment purposes.[6] | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
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] | |||||