Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO v. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA

This case has been cited 10 times or more.

	Adm. Case No. 7332 2013-06-18	EDUARDO A. ABELLA v. RICARDO G. BARRIOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.[36] It treads the line of grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency.[37] On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."[38]
	AC. No. 6593 2010-02-04	MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO v. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO PER CURIAM
Immoral conduct involves acts that are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the community.[20] Immoral conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency.[21] We make these distinctions as the supreme penalty of disbarment arising from conduct requires grossly immoral, not simply immoral, conduct.[22]
	AC. No. 5338 2009-02-23	EUGENIA MENDOZA v. ATTY. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE PER CURIAM
A lawyer may be disciplined for acts committed even in his private capacity for acts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public.[28] Indeed, there is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in a lawyer's private life or in his professional capacity, for a lawyer may not divide his personality as an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.[29]
	AC. No. 7022 2008-06-18	MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO v. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER QUISUMBING, J.
On another point, we may agree with respondent's contention that complainant was not entirely blameless. She knew about his wife but blindly believed him to be unmarried. However, that one complicit in the affair complained of immorality against her co-principal does not make this case less serious since it is immaterial whether Ms. Samaniego is in pari delicto.[21] We must emphasize that this Court's investigation is not about Ms. Samaniego's acts but Atty. Ferrer's conduct as one of its officers and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[22]
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis[51] and they belong to a class of their own.[52] They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer.[53] They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance.[54]
	AC. NO. 7204 2007-03-07	CYNTHIA ADVINCULA v. ATTY. ERNESTO M. MACABATA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[21] respondent lawyer was disbarred when he abandoned his lawful wife and three children, lured an innocent woman into marrying him and misrepresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.
	AC. NO. 6010 2006-08-28	ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent was already a member of the Bar when he contracted the bigamous second marriage in 1989, having been admitted to the Bar in 1985. As such, he cannot feign ignorance of the mandate of the law that before a second marriage may be validly contracted, the first and subsisting marriage must first be annulled by the appropriate court. The second marriage was annulled only on 4 October 1994 before the RTC of Benguet, Branch 9, or about five years after respondent contracted his second marriage. The annulment of respondent's second marriage has no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. Firstly, as earlier emphasized, the annulment came after the respondent's second bigamous marriage. Secondly, as we held in In re: Almacen, a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the judgment of annulment of respondent's second marriage also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof - clear preponderance of evidence - in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability attaches.[23]
	AC. NO. 6010 2006-08-28	ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY LABORATORY HIGH SCHOOL FACULTY v. ATTY. ROLANDO C. DELA CRUZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma,[28] respondent was also disbarred for his grossly immoral acts such as: first, he abandoned his lawful wife and three children; second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him; third, he mispresented himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign land; and fourth, he availed himself of complainant's resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant's office in order to marry the latter's daughter. He did this without complainant's knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure complainant that "everything is legal."