Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMANA R. MALIGSA v. ATTY. ARSENIO FER CABANTING

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 9608 2012-11-27	MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA v. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON PER CURIAM
Likewise, it was held in Maligsa v. Cabanting[21] that a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. Similarly, in Dumadag v. Lumaya,[22] the Court pronounced: The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
	AC. No. 5859 2010-11-23	ATTY. CARMEN LEONOR M. ALCANTARA v. ATTY. EDUARDO C. DE VERA PER CURIAM
It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.[10] 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 or disbar 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 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 an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish the attorney.[11] In Maligsa v. Cabanting,[12]we explained that the 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 profession 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. 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.
	AC. No. 7902 2008-09-30	TORBEN B. OVERGAARD v. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ PER CURIAM
The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege. It is granted only to those of good moral character.[37] The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing.[38] Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,[39] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[40]
	AC. No. 6634 2007-08-23	TAN TIONG BIO v. ATTY. RENATO L. GONZALES GARCIA, J.
It cannot be over-emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Far from it. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.[14] Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.[15]
	AC. No. 6492 2004-11-18	MELANIO L. ZORETA v. ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO 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]
	AC. No. 1558 2003-03-10	HONORIO MANALANG v. ATTY. FRANCISCO F. ANGELES QUISUMBING, J.
His act of holding on to his clients' money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. He was clinging to something which was not his, and to which he had no right.[23] He appears oblivious of the admonition that a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[24]
	AC. No. 4738 2002-02-06	VIOLETA FLORES ALITAGTAG v. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA PER CURIAM
"As a lawyer commissioned as notary public, respondent is mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appreciating to his office, such duties being dictated by public policy impressed with public interest. Faithful observance and utmost respect of the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment of jurat is sacrosanct. Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon and failing therein, he must now accept the commensurate consequences of his professional indiscretion. By his effrontery of notarizing a fictitious or spurious document, he has made a mockery of the legal solemnity of the oath in an Acknowledgment."[11] In the case at bar, respondent violated his solemn oath as a lawyer not to engage in unlawful, dishonest or deceitful conduct.[12] He maintained that the signature of the donor was a genuine despite the finding of experts to the contrary. He also tried to make a mockery of the legal profession by advancing the flimsy excuse that his failure to submit a copy of the document to the Clerk of Court was his secretary's fault.