Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ISIDRA TING-DUMALI v. ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 2655 2010-10-12	LEONARD W. RICHARDS v. PATRICIO A. ASOY PER CURIAM
Respondent's justification for his 9-year belated "compliance" with the order for him to reimburse complainant glaringly speaks of his lack of candor, of his dishonesty, if not defiance of Court orders, qualities that do not endear him to the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. The solemn oath which all lawyers take upon admission to the bar to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice is neither a mere formality nor hollow words meant to be taken lightly, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times.[8] The lack of any sufficient justification or explanation for the nine-year delay in complying with the Court's July 9, 1987 and March 15, 1988 Resolutions to reimburse complainant betrays a clear and contumacious disregard for the lawful orders of this Court. Such disrespect on the part of respondent constitutes a clear violation of the lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility which maintains that: CANON 7 -- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
	AC. No. 8010 2009-06-16	KELD STEMMERIK v. ATTY. LEONUEL N. MAS PER CURIAM
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.[21] That oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times.[22]
	AC. No. 5338 2009-02-23	EUGENIA MENDOZA v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE PER CURIAM
While the power to disbar is exercised with great caution and is withheld whenever a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired,[36] the seriousness of respondent's offense compels the Court to wield its supreme power of disbarment. Indeed, the Court will not hestitate to remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers where the evidence calls for it.[37] This is because 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 proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney.[38]
	AC. NO. 7204 2007-03-07	CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The question as to what disciplinary sanction should be imposed against a lawyer found guilty of misconduct requires consideration of a number of factors.[33] When deciding upon the appropriate sanction, the Court must consider that the primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings are to protect the public; to foster public confidence in the Bar; to preserve the integrity of the profession; and to deter other lawyers from similar misconduct.[34] Disciplinary proceedings are means of protecting the administration of justice by requiring those who carry out this important function to be competent, honorable and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence.[35] While it is discretionary upon the Court to impose a particular sanction that it may deem proper against an erring lawyer, it should neither be arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, but should ever be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence of the bar and to exact from the lawyer strict compliance with his duties to the court, to his client, to his brethren in the profession and to the public.
	AC. NO. 5417 2006-03-31	AMADOR Z. MALHABOUR v. ATTY. ALBERTI R. SARMIENTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that as a lawyer, respondent is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice.[14] As such, he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.[15] This Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral character of members of the Bar. They are expected at all times to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession[16] and refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.[17] Membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[18] And whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of this Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw the privilege.[19] Respondent's conduct blemished not only his integrity as a member of the Bar, but also that of the legal profession. His conduct fell short of the exacting standards expected of him as a guardian of law and justice.
	AC. NO. 6792 2006-01-25	ROBERTO SORIANO v. ATTY. MANUEL DIZON PER CURIAM
The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable -- lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. [32] Thus, whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, we shall not hesitate to rid our profession of odious members.