Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIA VICTORIA B. VENTURA v. ATTY. DANILO S. SAMSON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. NO. 10525 2015-09-01	INTESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE UY v. ATTY. PACIFICO M. MAGHARI III LEONEN, J.
However, we have demonstrated that what can otherwise be dismissed as empty formalities are, in fact, necessary solemnities. They are not ends in themselves but crucial means to enhance the integrity, competence and credibility of the legal profession. They are vital to the dispensation of justice. The significance of these solemnities, along with the legal profession's "high standard of legal proficiency, . . . morality, honesty, integrity[,] and fair dealing[,]"[65] put in contrast with how respondent has fallen dismally and disturbingly short of the high standards that his profession demands, demonstrates the propriety of momentarily suspending respondent from engaging in legal practice.
	AC. No. 9925 2014-09-17	MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL v. ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On complainant's affidavit of desistance, we hold that its execution cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings against respondent in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.[8]
	AC. No. 9401 2013-10-22	JOCELYN DE LEON v. ATTY. TYRONE PEDRENA BERSAMIN, J.
The records show that Atty. Pedreña rubbed the complainant's right leg with his hand; tried to insert his finger into her firmly closed hand; grabbed her hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area; and pressed his finger against her private part. Given the circumstances in which he committed them, his acts were not merely offensive and undesirable but repulsive, disgraceful and grossly immoral. They constituted misconduct on the part of any lawyer. In this regard, it bears stressing that 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.[16]
	AC. No. 6490 2013-07-09	LILIA TABANG v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT PER CURIAM
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that "a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an officer of the court."[46] Accordingly, "[l]awyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing."[47]
	Adm. Case No. 7332 2013-06-18	EDUARDO A. ABELLA v. RICARDO G. BARRIOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
To note, "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."[28] This proceeds from the lawyer's duty to observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bar's integrity.[29] Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyer's public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or disbarment.[30]