Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RITA DE ERE v. ATTY. MANOLO RUBI

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	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]
	A C. No. 5033 2008-07-28	MARY JANE D. VELASCO v. ATTY. CHARLIE DOROIN PER CURIAM
Lawyers must conduct themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at large,[18] and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[19] In Marcelo v. Javier,[20] we reminded the members of the legal profession that:A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients require in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. Generally speaking, a lawyer can do 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, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession.
	AC. NO. 6313 2006-09-07	CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG v. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL TINGA, J.
Neither shall we entertain complainant's claim for moral damages and attorney's fees. Suffice it to state that an administrative case against a lawyer is sui generis, one that is distinct from a civil or a criminal action.[36] It is an investigation by the Court into the fitness of a lawyer to remain in the legal profession and be allowed the privileges as such. Its primary objective is to protect the Court and the public from the misconduct of its officers with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men and women in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[37] As such, it involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance.[38] The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the lawyer's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice.[39]