Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LILIA TABANG v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR instructs that, as officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.[27] Indubitably, respondent fell short of such standard when she committed the afore-described acts of deception against complainants. Such acts are not only unacceptable, disgraceful, and dishonorable to the legal profession; they reveal basic moral flaws that make him unfit to practice law.[28]
	AC. No. 7766 2014-08-05	JOSE ALLAN TAN v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE PER CURIAM
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing,[25] failing in which whether in his personal or private capacity, he becomes unworthy to continue his practice of law.[26] A lawyer's inexcusable neglect to serve his client's interests with utmost diligence and competence as well as his engaging in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct in order to conceal such neglect should never be countenanced, and thus, administratively sanctioned.
	AC. No. 8000 2014-08-05	CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As officers of the court, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.[14] In this regard, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides: CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
	AC. No. 4945 2013-10-08	MA. JENNIFER TRIA-SAMONTE v. EPIFANIA “FANNY” OBIAS PER CURIAM
In the present case, respondent clearly transgressed the above-mentioned rules as her actions were evidently prejudicial to her clients' interests. Records disclose that instead of delivering the deed of sale covering the subject property to her clients, she wilfully notarized a deed of sale over the same property in favor of another person. Accordingly, far removed from protecting the interest of her clients, Sps. Tria, who had, in fact, already fully paid the purchase price of the subject property, respondent participated and was even instrumental in bringing about the defeat of their rights over the said property. Hence, respondent grossly violated the trust and confidence reposed in her by her clients, in contravention of Canons 17 and 18 of the Code. To add, by turning against her own clients, respondent also violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code which provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoral or deceitful conduct. Lest it be forgotten, lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.[35] These unyielding standards respondent evidently failed to adhere to.