This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The severity of disbarment or suspension proceedings as the penalty for an attorney's misconduct has always moved the Court to treat the complaint with utmost caution and deliberate circumspection. We have done so because we must wield the power to disbar or suspend on the preservative rather than on the vindictive principle,[17] conformably with our thinking that disbarment or suspension will be condign and appropriate only when there is a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of misconduct seriously affecting the professional standing and ethics of respondent attorney as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar.[18] | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Given the foregoing, the Court finds petitioner's demand for a full-dress hearing to be without basis. It is only when the complaint bears merit, or when the answer fails to show that the complaint indeed lacks merit, or when the respondent fails to file an answer that an investigation shall proceed. Otherwise, if the complaint is bereft of merit, either on its face or as proven by respondent's answer, it will be unjust to mandate the Investigator to conduct a full-dress investigation.[26] Here, the petitioner has not even carried well enough the burden of establishing a prima facie case against the respondent. | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that the power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons.[20] The burden of proof rests on the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[21] Thus, the adage that "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[22] | |||||