Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA v. ATTY. LEONARD DE VERA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AM No. 09-5-2-SC 2013-04-11	IN MATTER OF BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN ELECTIONS OF INTEGRATED BAR OF PHILIPPINES. ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO v. ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN MENDOZA, J.
1. Eugene Tan (Capiz) Western Visayas January 28, 1990-April 1991[17] 2. Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan) Central Luzon April 1991-June 30, 1991 3. Mervin Encanto (Quezon City) Greater Manila 1993-1995 4. Raoul R. Angangco (Makati) Southern Luzon 1995-1997 5. Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran) Eastern Visayas 1997-1999 6.Arthur Lim (Zambasulta) Western Mindanao 1999-2001 7. Teofilo Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga Apayao) Northern Luzon 2001-2003 8. Jose Anselmo Cadiz (Camarines Sur) Bicolandia 2003-2005
	GR No. 180363 2009-04-28	EDGAR Y. TEVES v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Minor transgressions of the law (i.e., conviction for speeding)[62] Illegal recruitment[63] Slight physical injuries and carrying of deadly weapon (Illegal possession of firearms)[64] 4. Indirect Contempt[65]
	AM No. 07-3-13-SC 2008-02-27	IN RE: COMPLIANCE OF IBP CHAPTERS WITH ADM. ORDER NO. 16-2007 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As the Court explained in Garcia v. De Vera:[9]
	GR No. 161886 2007-03-16	FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES GARCIA, J.
It is elementary in procedural law that bare allegations do not constitute evidence adequate to support a conclusion. It is basic in the rule of evidence that he who alleges a fact bears the burden of proving it by the quantum of proof required. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court.[19] The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[20]
	GR NO. 171102 2006-11-24	ATP TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL v. MICRON PRECISION PHILS. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Apart from the inspection report, the testimonies of petitioner's witnesses are bereft of any indication that respondent either tampered or caused the alleged tampering of the electric sub-meter. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof under the Rules of Court.[19]
	AC. NO. 6697 2006-07-25	ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ v. ATTY. LEONARD S. DE VERA PER CURIAM
While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive power of supervision over the IBP,[64] it is axiomatic that such power should be exercised prudently. The power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the IBP should not preclude the IBP from exercising its reasonable discretion especially in the administration of its internal affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws. The IBP By-Laws were precisely drafted and promulgated so as to define the powers and functions of the IBP and its officers, establish its organizational structure, and govern relations and transactions among its officers and members. With these By-Laws in place, the Supreme Court could be assured that the IBP shall be able to carry on its day-to-day affairs, without the Court's interference.