Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REMEDIOS RAMIREZ TAPUCAR v. ATTY. LAURO L. TAPUCAR

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 6593 2010-02-04	MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO v. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO PER CURIAM
The Court has often reminded the members of the bar to live up to the standards and norms expected of the legal profession by upholding the ideals and principles embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.[31] Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, including honesty, integrity and fair dealing.[32] Lawyers are at all times subject to the watchful public eye and community approbation.[33] Needless to state, those whose conduct - both public and private - fail this scrutiny have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings, accordingly penalized.[34]
	AC. NO. 6585 2005-04-21	TOMAS B. YUMOL v. ATTY. ROBERTO R. FERRER CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Complainants ask that respondent be disbarred. On imposing the supreme penalty of disbarment, the rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[60] While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.[61] In the case at bar, the IBP Investigating Commissioner Rebecca V. Maala recommended the suspension of respondent for two (2) years while the IBP Board of Governors recommended a lighter penalty of six (6) months suspension. Taking our cue therefrom, we find one (1) year suspension to be sufficient sanction against respondent - suspension being primarily intended not as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.[62]
	AC. No. 5454 2004-11-23	CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the propriety of imposing the supreme penalty of disbarment, the rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[28] While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.[29] In this case, we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction against respondent - suspension being primarily intended not as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.[30]
	AC. No. 6486 2004-09-22	EMMA T. DANTES v. ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES PER CURIAM
The power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.[33] Where a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should never be decreed.[34] However, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty.
	AC. No. 5379 2003-05-09	WALTER T. YOUNG v. CEASAR G. BATUEGAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and good demeanor, thus proving unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[12]
	AC. No. 5081 2003-03-24	EMILIANA M. EUSTAQUIO v. ATTY. REX C. RIMORIN QUISUMBING, J.
Respondent's deceitful conduct makes him less than worthy of his continued practice of law. A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.[26] Commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.[27] Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the Court which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its bar to withdraw the privilege.[28]
	AC. No. 4497 2001-09-26	MR. v. VS.ATTY. FLORANTE E. MADROÑO QUISUMBING, J.
The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[12] While we will not hesitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.[13] In this case, we find suspension to be a sufficient sanction against respondent. Suspension, we may add, is not primarily intended as a punishment, but as a means to protect the public and the legal profession.[14]