Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LILIA TABANG v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	ADM CASE NO. 5018 2007-01-26	ROGELIO H. VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. AMADO B. DELORIA TINGA, J.
A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons.[21] In Baldomar v. Paras,[22] we held:Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. x x x Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for investigation in disbarment and disciplinary proceedings against attorneys before the IBP, thus:
	AC. NO. 6678 2006-10-09	JOCELYN A. SAQUING v. ATTY. NOEL A. MORA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and this Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence.[11] Considering the serious consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.[12]
	AC. NO. 5128 2005-03-31	ELESIO C. PORMENTO v. ATTY. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, we reiterate the settled rule that in complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement which may not be dispensed with except for valid and compelling reasons.[16] Formal investigations entail notice and hearing. However, the requirements of notice and hearing in administrative cases do not necessarily connote full adversarial proceedings, as actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies.[17] Due process is fulfilled when the parties were given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments.[18]