Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 9116 2014-03-12	NESTOR B. FIGUERAS v. ATTY. DIOSDADO B. JIMENEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the person who called the attention of the court to a lawyer's misconduct "is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest in the outcome."[17]
	AC. No. 10179 2014-03-04	BENJAMIN Q. ONG v. ATTY. WILLIAM F. DELOS SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
Every lawyer is an officer of the Court. He has the duty and responsibility to maintain his good moral character. In this regard, good moral character is not only a condition precedent relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is a continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership in the Philippine Bar.[10] The Court unwaveringly demands of him to remain a competent, honorable, and reliable individual in whom the public may repose confidence.[11] Any gross misconduct that puts his moral character in serious doubt renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[12]
	GR No. 177578 2012-01-25	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. OBERTO S. LOBUSTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Before we end, we note petitioners' repeated failure to comply with our resolutions, as well as the orders issued by the tribunals below. We remind petitioners and their counsels that our resolutions requiring them to file pleadings are not to be construed as mere requests, nor should they be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Counsels are also reminded that lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well.[35] We may also dismiss petitioners' appeal for their failure to comply with any circular, directive or order of the Supreme Court without justifiable cause.[36] In fact, we actually denied the instant petition on July 9, 2008 since petitioners failed to file the required reply to the comment filed by Lobusta.[37] On reconsideration, however, we reinstated the petition.[38] But when we required the parties to submit memoranda, petitioners again did not comply.[39] As regards the proceedings below, they did not file their position paper on time, despite the extensions granted by the Labor Arbiter.[40] Nor did they file the comment and memorandum required by the CA.[41]
	AC. No. 6273 2010-03-15	ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA v. ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO CARPIO MORALES, J.
When, after obtaining an extension of time to file comment on the complaint, respondent failed to file any and ignored this Court's subsequent show cause order, he violated Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so." Sebastian v. Bajar[28] teaches: x x x Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondent's conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively". Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof.