This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Commissioner Funa also took note that the instant case had practically the same set of facts as in Olbes v. Deciembre[21] and Acosta v. Deciembre.[22] In Olbes, complainants therein, who were also postal employees, averred that respondent without authority filled up a total of four checks to represent a total of P200,000.00. In Acosta, the complainant therein, another postal employee, averred that respondent filled up two blank checks for a total of P100,000.00. Acosta, however, was dismissed by Commissioner Lydia Navarro on the ground that it did not involve any lawyer-client relationship, which ground, Commissioner Funa believes, is erroneous.[23] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Evidently, respondent failed to comply with the foregoing canons. As shown by the records and as found by the Commissioner, complainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as security for the P20,000 loan she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully filled out with various amounts they had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been dishonored upon presentment, respondent even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from and highly unbecoming of a member of the Bar.[9] The fact that the conduct pertained to respondent's private dealings with complainant is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but also a continuing qualification for all members of the Bar.[10] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| For the record, respondent has already been indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in A.C. No. 5365 entitled Olbes v. Deciembre,[11] a case involving an offense and a set of facts similar to the case at bar. In the said case, the Court notes that complainants therein averred that "many of their officemates--among them, Juanita Manaois, Honorata Acosta and Eugenia Mendoza--had suffered the same fate in their dealings with respondent (Deciembre)."[12] This demonstrates respondent's propensity to employ deceit and misrepresentation. As such, following our ruling in Olbes, the Court hereby imposes the same penalty upon respondent in the present case. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The afore-cited canons emphasize the high standard of honesty and fairness expected of a lawyer not only in the practice of the legal profession but in his personal dealings as well. [36] A lawyer must conduct himself with great propriety, and his behavior should be beyond reproach anywhere and at all times.[37] For, as officers of the courts and keepers of the public's faith, they are burdened with the highest degree of social responsibility and are thus mandated to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. [38] Likewise, the oath that lawyers swear to impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. [39] Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.[40] | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness. [29] The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and condemns duplicitous behavior. [30] Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith. | |||||