Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO H. SIBULO v. FELICISIMO ILAGAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AC. No. 8235 2015-01-27	JOSELITO F. TEJANO v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA CARPIO, J.
Lawyers, as this Court has previously emphasized, "are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court."[32] As such, Atty. Baterina should "know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely."[33]
	GR No. 187836 2014-11-25	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM PEREZ, J.
Atty. Gempis should "strive harder to live up to his duties of observing and maintaining the respect due to the courts, respect for law and for legal processes and of upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession in order to perform his responsibilities as a lawyer effectively."[141]
	AC. No. 4549 2013-12-02	NESTOR V. FELIPE v. ATTY. CIRIACO A. MACAPAGAL DEL CASTILLO, J.
As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely. This is also true of the orders of the IBP as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers.[22]
	AC. No. 10043 2013-11-20	AURORA H. CABAUATAN v. ATTY. FREDDIE A. VENIDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
In addition, we concur with the findings of the IBP that respondent is guilty of disregarding its notices and orders. Respondent did not heed the IBP's Order to file his Answer. He also disregarded the IBP's directives for him to attend the mandatory conference. Moreover, he did not submit his Position Paper despite receipt of notice. Respondent's refusal to obey the orders of the IBP "is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court."[15] Respondent should be reminded that -
	AC. No. 5239 2013-11-18	SPS. GEORGE A. WARRINER AND AURORA R. WARRINER v. ATTY. RENI M. DUBLIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
We also agree with the IBP that respondent has a propensity to disobey and disrespect court orders and processes. Note that we required respondent to submit his Comment to this administrative Complaint as early as year 2000. However, he was only able to file his Comment eight years later, or in 2008 and only after we ordered his arrest. "As an officer of the court, respondent is expected to know that a resolution of this Court is not a mere request but an order which should be complied with promptly and completely.[22]
	AC. No. 9615 2013-03-05	GLORIA P. JINON v. ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Furthermore, respondent's infractions were aggravated by his failure to comply with CBD's directives for him to file his pleadings on time and to religiously attend hearings, demonstrating not only his irresponsibility but also his disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers. Such conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court.[19] As a member of the bar, he ought to have known that the orders of the CBD as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers were not mere requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely.[20]
	AC. No. 7815 2009-07-23	DOLORES C. BELLEZA v. ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA PER CURIAM
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of the CBD was not only irresponsible but also constituted utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers.[13] His conduct was unbecoming of a lawyer who is called upon to obey court orders and processes and is expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives as an officer of the court.[14] Respondent should have known that the orders of the CBD (as the investigating arm of the Court in administrative cases against lawyers) were not mere requests but directives which should have been complied with promptly and completely.[15]
	AC. NO. 6051 2007-04-02	CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.[21] And while respondent issued a check in the amount of P120,000.00 in favor of complainant, purportedly to satisfy the judgment against him, the check was later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. Respondent never denied the issuance of the check or refuted complainant's allegations regarding the same. Neither did he question the veracity of complainant's evidence which consisted of the check itself.