Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARMELITA I. ZAGUIRRE v. ATTY. ALFREDO CASTILLO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 7353 2015-11-16	NELSON P. VALDEZ v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON PER CURIAM
It has been repeatedly held that to justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.[25] A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. It is willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.[26]
	AC. No. 7353 2015-11-16	NELSON P. VALDEZ v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON PER CURIAM
Conduct is immoral when it is "so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community."[46] Further: [The] conduct [to warrant disciplinary action] must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. . . . [I]t must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency."[47]
	AC. No. 9608 2012-11-27	MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA v. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON PER CURIAM
As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo,[14] the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. It is the bounden duty of members of the bar to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.[15] Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private activities, which tends to show said lawyer deficient in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.
	AC. No. 6593 2010-02-04	MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO v. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO PER CURIAM
As applied to the present case, the time that elapsed between the immoral acts charged and the filing of the complaint is not material in considering the qualification of Atty. Garrido when he applied for admission to the practice of law, and his continuing qualification to be a member of the legal profession. From this perspective, it is not important that the acts complained of were committed before Atty. Garrido was admitted to the practice of law. As we explained in Zaguirre v. Castillo,[17] the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the bar and to retain membership in the legal profession. Admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning the mental or moral fitness of the respondent before he became a lawyer.[18] Admission to the practice only creates the rebuttable presumption that the applicant has all the qualifications to become a lawyer; this may be refuted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary even after admission to the Bar.[19]
	AC. No. 7022 2008-06-18	MARJORIE F. SAMANIEGO v. ATTY. ANDREW V. FERRER QUISUMBING, J.
Atty. Ferrer admitted his extra-marital affair; in his words, his indiscretion which ended in 2000. We have considered such illicit relation as a disgraceful and immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action.[15] The penalty for such immoral conduct is disbarment,[16] or indefinite[17] or definite[18] suspension, depending on the circumstances of the case. Recently, in Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, Jr.,[19] we ruled that suspension from the practice of law for two years was an adequate penalty imposed on the lawyer who was found guilty of gross immorality. In said case, we considered the absence of aggravating circumstances such as an adulterous relationship coupled with refusal to support his family; or maintaining illicit relationships with at least two women during the subsistence of his marriage; or abandoning his legal wife and cohabiting with other women.[20]
	AC. NO. 7280 2006-11-16	DAHLIA S. GACIAS v. ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN GARCIA, J.
Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the complainant involving a tiny parcel of land, a want of professional honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the moral stuff which he is made of. His fitness to continue in the advocacy of law and manage the legal affairs of others are thus put in serious doubt too. The private nature of the transaction or the fact that the same was concluded without the respondent taking advantage of his legal profession is really of little moment. For, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him wanting in honesty, probity or good demeanor.[7]
	AC. NO. 6313 2006-09-07	CATHERINE JOIE P. VITUG v. ATTY. DIOSDADO M. RONGCAL TINGA, J.
Respondent's misconduct is of considerable gravity. There is a string of cases where the Court meted out the extreme penalty of disbarment on the ground of gross immorality where the respondent contracted a bigamous marriage,[40] abandoned his family to cohabit with his paramour,[41] cohabited with a married woman,[42] lured an innocent woman into marriage,[43] or was found to be a womanizer.[44] The instant case can be easily differentiated from the foregoing cases. We, therefore, heed the stern injunction on decreeing disbarment where any lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, would accomplish the end desired.[45] In Zaguirre v. Castillo,[46] respondent was found to have sired a child with another woman who knew he was married. He therein sought understanding from the Court pointing out the polygamous nature of men and that the illicit relationship was a product of mutual lust and desire. Appalled at his reprehensible and amoral attitude, the Court suspended him indefinitely. However, in Fr. Sinnott v. Judge Barte,[47] where respondent judge consorted with a woman not his wife, but there was no conclusive evidence that he sired a child with her, he was fined P10,000.00 for his conduct unbecoming a magistrate despite his retirement during the pendency of the case.
	AC. No. 6295 2004-04-14	JOSEFINA B. FAJARDO v. ATTY. DANILO DELA TORRE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As consistently held by this Court, disbarment shall not be meted out where a lesser penalty could accomplish the end desired.[18] However, the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one (1) month imposed by the IBP Board of Governors is not proportionate to respondent's violation of several Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, he deserves a graver penalty,
	AM No. RTJ-01-1657 2004-02-23	HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession. It is a continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning one's mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer.[44] The rule is settled that a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law.[45]