Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TRIFONIA J. GAVIOLA v. ATTY. ERASTO D. SALCEDO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175201 2008-04-23	OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Gaviola v. Salcedo,[39] which involved an administrative case for suspension or disbarment against a lawyer, this Court gave probative value to the Affidavit of Desistance of the complainant, pronouncing that while the filing of an Affidavit of Desistance by the complainant for lack of interest does not ipso facto result in the termination of the administrative case, it was constrained to dismiss the charges since such charges cannot be proven without the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses. Such is the case at bar. Essentially, the administrative case against Bungubung was based on the allegations made by Doromal in his Affidavit-Complaint, without which, the case against Bungubung collapses.
	GR NO. 121404 2006-05-03	ANICETO G. SALUDO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, the success of a lawyer in his profession depends almost entirely on his reputation. Anything which will harm his good name is to be deplored[19] as a lawyer's reputation is "a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, is not easily restored."[20] The eventual dismissal however of the administrative case, as in this case, should more than redeem and maintain petitioner's good name.
	AC. NO. 5050 2005-09-20	FELISA M. ANGELES v. ATTY. ROBERTO L. FIGUEROA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is settled that the power to disbar or suspend ought always to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, with great caution and only for the most weighty reasons.[20] The burden of proof rests on the complainant and the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.[21] Thus, the adage that "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[22]
	AC. No. 6490 2004-09-29	LILIA TABANG v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nonetheless, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. For the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Indeed, considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, the Supreme Court has consistently held that clearly preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[7]