This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The law profession is not a trade or a business venture.[1] The practice of law and membership in the bar for that matter is a high personal privilege burdened with conditions[2] and is limited to citizens who show and continue to show the qualifications and character traits required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[3] In accordance, therefore, with its constitutional mandate to regulate the legal profession and its authority to discipline its erring members, it behooves the Court to keep an ever watchful eye on, among others, unscrupulous lawyers with a penchant for hoodwinking, at every turn, their trusting clients; and, in general, on those whose misconduct tends to blemish the purity of the legal profession. And if need be, the Court shall remove from the ranks those unable to adhere to the rigid standards of morality and integrity required by the ethics of the legal profession. So it must be in this disciplinary proceeding. | |||||
|
2004-11-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[19] Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege or right, an attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.[20] Elaborating on this, we said in Maligsa v. Cabanting[21] that "[t]he bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession."[22] Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor, which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.[23] | |||||