Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FE A. YLAYA v. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
The fact that a proceeding is sui generis and is impressed with discretion, however, does not automatically denigrate an applicant's entitlement to due process. It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal; they involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. [44] Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who, by their misconduct, have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.[45] On the whole, disciplinary proceedings are actually aimed to verify and finally determine, if a lawyer charged is still qualified to benefit from the rights and privileges that membership in the legal profession evoke.
	Adm. Case No. 8108 2014-07-15	DANTE LA JIMENEZ v. ATTY. FELISBERTO L. VERANO SERENO, C.J.
We emphasize at the outset that the Court may conduct its own investigation into charges against members of the bar, irrespective of the form of initiatory complaints brought before it. Thus, a complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.[16] By now, it is basic that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.[17]
	AC. No. 9317 2014-06-04	ADELIA V. QUIACHON v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS SERENO, C.J.
The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court.[16] There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar.[17] Public interest is the primary objective. We explained why in Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos,[18] viz.: The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment case allegedly executed by complainant does not, in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven x x x. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence on record warrants, the respondent may be suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of complainant or his withdrawal of the charges x x x.