Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR v. ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	AC. No. 10134 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES v. ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ MENDOZA, J.
It bears stressing that Atty. Diaz is a servant of the law and belongs to that profession which society entrusts with the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she is an exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Necessarily, this Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character from members of the Bar. They are always expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of this noble profession.[21]
	AC. No. 9115 2014-09-17	REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL v. ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Be that as it may, the Court, nonetheless, finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct by, as admitted, mortgaging the subject property, notwithstanding the apparent dispute over the same. Regardless of the merits of his own claim, respondent should have exhibited prudent restraint becoming of a legal exemplar. He should not have exposed himself even to the slightest risk of committing a property violation nor any action which would endanger the Bar's reputation. Verily, members of the Bar are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and 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.[26] By no insignificant measure, respondent blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession. In other words, his conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a guardian of law and justice. Although to a lesser extent as compared to what has been ascribed by the IBP, the Court still holds respondent guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code. Considering that this is his first offense as well as the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court believes that a fine of P15,000.00 would suffice.