Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	BM No. 1222 2009-04-24	RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic."[8]
	AC. No. 6972 2008-10-17	JERRY T. WONG v. ATTY. SALVADOR N. MOYA II LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a member of the Bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.[20]
	AC. No. 1302 2008-06-30	CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA v. ATTY. DIONISIO C. ANTINIW LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws, as he is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them under foot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic. [54] WHEREFORE, the disbarment of DIONISIO C. ANTINIW from the practice of law is LIFTED and he is therefore allowed to resume the practice of law upon payment of the required legal fees. This resolution is effective immediately.
	AC. No. 7494 2008-06-27	WILSON CHAM v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court stresses that membership in the legal profession is a privilege.[17] It demands a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law.[18] In this case, respondent fell short of the exacting standards expected of her as a guardian of law and justice.[19]
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
A disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers. This Court requires that its officers shall be competent, honorable, and reliable men in whom the public may repose confidence.[55] "Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to their clients. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court."[56]
	AC. NO. 6051 2007-04-02	CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Needless to say, the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondent's infractions. Time and again, we have held that the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers.[22] Such conduct indicates the respondentï¿½s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.[23]