Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIA CIELO B. SUZUKI v. ATTY. ERWIN L. TIAMSON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 10579 2014-12-10	ERLINDA FOSTER v. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG PER CURIAM
All told, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, "the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession."[43] The Court likewise aims to ensure the proper and honest administration of justice by "purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proven themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an attorney."[44]
	AC. No. 8382 2010-04-21	ALFREDO B. ROA v. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO CARPIO, J.
However, we cannot sustain the IBP's recommendation ordering respondent to return the money paid by complainant. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. Our only concern is the determination of respondent's administrative liability. Our findings have no material bearing on other judicial action which the parties may choose to file against each other.[14]
	GR No. 180700 2008-03-04	VILLASEÑOR AND MESA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL. REYES, R.T., J.
It is clear, then, that criminal and administrative cases are distinct from each other.[23] The settled rule is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the first two will not inevitably govern or affect the third and vice versa.[24] Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal proceedings.[25]
	AC. No. 5281 2008-02-12	MANUEL L. LEE v. ATTY. REGINO B. TAMBAGO CORONA, J.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction.[46] We have held in a number of cases that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution[47] and should not be decreed if any punishment less severe such as reprimand, suspension, or fine will accomplish the end desired.[48] The rule then is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court.[49]
	AC. NO. 6678 2006-10-09	JOCELYN A. SAQUING v. ATTY. NOEL A. MORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe - such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine - would accomplish the end desired.[16]
	GR NO. 121404 2006-05-03	ANICETO G. SALUDO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The settled rule is that criminal and civil cases are different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa.[15] In Berbano v. Barcelona,[16] it was held that:... Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, [they are] in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. [They] may be initiated by the Court motu propio. Public interest is [their] primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have prove[n] themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney ....