This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-11 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The relation of attorney and client is in many respects one of agency, and the general rules of agency apply to such relation.[22] The acts of an agent are deemed the acts of the principal only if the agent acts within the scope of his authority.[23] The circumstances of this case indicate that respondent's counsel is acting beyond the scope of his authority in questioning the compromise agreement. | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Complainant's bare allegation that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him, deserves no credit. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, and she must establish the case against the respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof,[28] disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power.[29] Thus, the adage that "he who asserts not he who denies, must prove."[30] As a basic rule in evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations-ei incumbit probation, qui decit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit.[31] In the case at bar, complainant miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her. A mere charge or allegation of wrongdoing does not suffice. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt.[32] | |||||
|
2006-07-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Disbarment, which complainant wants to be meted upon respondent, is the most severe form of disciplinary action.[15] It should be resorted to only in cases where the lawyer demonstrates an attitude or course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standards.[16] | |||||