This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant.[13] Moreover, an administrative case against a lawyer must show the dubious character of the act done as well as of the motivation thereof.[14] In the present case, complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to show that respondent willfully and deliberately resorted to falsehood and unlawful and dishonest conduct in violation of the standards of honesty as provided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility which would have warranted the imposition of administrative sanction against him. | |||||
|
2003-01-24 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Obviously being chastised twice has not reformed respondent. On the contrary, instead of learning from his past mistakes he persisted in his errant ways. Indeed, it seems that respondent judge has remained undeterred in disregarding the law which he has pledged to uphold and the Code which he has promised to live by.[63] He appears to be unfazed by the previous penalties and warnings he received[64] because the records of the OCA, in fact, discloses that aside from this case, respondent Judge had six (6) other similar administrative complaints[65] still pending against him. | |||||