Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL v. ATTY. PRIMO R. NALDOZA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 4808 2011-11-22	TERESITA T. BAYONLA v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES BERSAMIN, J.
Relevantly, we have also emphasized in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza [24] that
	GR No. 171491 2009-09-04	DR. CASTOR C. DE JESUS v. RAFAEL D. GUERRERO III QUISUMBING, J.
As we have said in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza[33] and which we have reiterated in a host of cases,[34] a finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in a finding of liability in the administrative case. Conversely, respondents' acquittal will not necessarily exculpate them administratively. The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa.[35]
	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. 7136 2007-08-01	JOSELANO GUEVARRA v. ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA PER CURIAM
. . . of proof for these types of cases differ. In a criminal case, proof beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; in an administrative case for disbarment or suspension, "clearly preponderant evidence" is all that is required.[33] (Emphasis supplied)
	AC. NO. 5321 2006-09-27	RAMON C. GONZALEZ v. ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ PANGANIBAN, CJ
Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.[19] In Re Almacen,[20] the Court discoursed on this point thus:"x x x [D]isciplinary proceedings [against lawyers] are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, x x x [they do] not involve x x x a trial of an action or a suit, but [are] rather investigation[s] by the Court into the conduct of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. x x x."[21]
	AC. NO. 5637 2005-04-12	CRISTINA A. ARIENDA v. ATTY. PORFIRIO AGUILA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Further, we find that apart from the allegations she made in various pleadings, complainant has not proferred any proof tending to show that respondent deliberately applied deceitful means to warrant any administrative sanction. It is one thing to allege deceit, misconduct, and another to demonstrate by evidence the specific acts constituting the same. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.[15] In this regard, we find that complainant failed to meet the required standard. Thus, absent a showing of clear preponderant evidence to sustain the charge against respondent, the complaint must be dismissed.[16]
	AM No. MTJ-01-1370 2003-04-25	OCA v. JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO CARPIO, J.
The acts or omissions of a judge may well constitute at the same time both a criminal act and an administrative offense. Whether the criminal case against Judge Hurtado relates to an act committed before or after he became a judge is of no moment. Neither is it material that an MTC judge will be trying an RTC judge in the criminal case. A criminal case against an attorney or judge is distinct and separate from an administrative case against him. The dismissal of the criminal case does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case arising from the same set of facts. The quantum of evidence that is required in the latter is only preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in criminal cases.[10] As held in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza:[11]
	AC. No. 4700 2000-04-12	RICARDO B. MANUBAY v. ATTY. GINA C. GARCIA PANGANIBAN, J.
A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for any misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor.[3] The lawyer's guilt, however, cannot be presumed.[4] Allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be equated with liability.