Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NAZARIA S. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. JOSE C. GO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 10438 2014-09-23	CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED v. NICOLAS C. TORRES PER CURIAM
As already discussed, respondent's conduct of misappropriating complainant's money has made him unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral acts.[32] As a member of the Bar, he is 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 in him by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[33] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same,[34] as in this case. In view of the foregoing, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law.
	AC. No. 7472 2010-03-30	LIGAYA MANIAGO v. ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS NACHURA, J.
It must be remembered that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such, must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public responsibilities.[3] Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Supreme Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw that privilege.[4] However, as much as the Court will not hesitate to discipline an erring lawyer, it should, at the same time, also ensure that a lawyer may not be deprived of the freedom and right to exercise his profession unreasonably.
	AC. No. 7181 2009-02-06	MARIA ANGALAN v. ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE PER CURIAM
Considering the depravity of respondent's offense, the Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Violation of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross misconduct.[25]Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court for gross misconduct. In Hernandez v. Go,[26] the Court disbarred a lawyer for transferring the titles over the properties of his client to his name without the knowledge of his client. In Hernandez, the Court held that:Considering the depravity of respondent's offense, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP too light. It bears reiterating that a lawyer who takes advantage of his client's financial plight to acquire the latter's properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Thus, for violation of Canon 16 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which constitutes gross misconduct, and consistent with the need to maintain the high standards of the Bar and thus preserve the faith of the public in the legal profession, respondent deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers.[27]
	AC. NO. 6707 2006-03-24	GISELA HUYSSEN v. ATTY. FRED L. GUTIERREZ PER CURIAM
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for any of the following acts: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude ; (6) violation of the lawyer's oath; (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority to do so.[27]