Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. JENNIFER TRIA-SAMONTE v. EPIFANIA “FANNY” OBIAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 10579 2014-12-10	ERLINDA FOSTER v. ATTY. JAIME V. AGTANG PER CURIAM
Notably, the Court cannot order respondent to return the money he borrowed from complainant in his private capacity. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias,[39] the Court held that it cannot order the lawyer to return money to complainant if he or she acted in a private capacity because its findings in administrative cases have no bearing on liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement. In disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, the only issue is whether the officer of the court is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar. The only concern of the Court is the determination of respondent's administrative liability. Its findings have no material bearing on other judicial actions which the parties may choose against each other.
	AC. No. 5044 2013-12-02	FELIPE C. DAGALA v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Court must, however, clarify that the foregoing resolution should not include a directive to return the amount of P74,000.00 as ordered by the IBP in its November 19, 2011 Resolution which represents the settlement initially offered by Capitol in the dismissed labor case. The return of the said amount partakes the nature of a purely civil liability which should not be dealt with during an administrative-disciplinary proceeding such as this case. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias,[58] the Court recently illumined that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are only confined to the issue of whether or not the respondent-lawyer is still fit to be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar and that the only concern is his administrative liability. Thus, matters which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement, such as the liabilities of the parties which are purely civil in nature, should be threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature, and not during administrative-disciplinary proceedings, as in this case.
	AC. No. 7965 2013-11-13	AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA v. ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
As a final point, the Court must clarify that the foregoing resolution should not include a directive for the return of the amount of P31,500.00 as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. The same amount was given by complainant to respondent to cover for registration expenses; hence, its return partakes the nature of a purely civil liability which should not be dealt with during an administrative-disciplinary proceeding. In Tria-Samonte v. Obias,[25] the Court recently held that its "findings during administrative-disciplinary proceedings have no bearing on the liabilities of the parties involved which are purely civil in nature meaning, those liabilities which have no intrinsic link to the lawyer's professional engagement as the same should be threshed out in a proper proceeding of such nature." This pronouncement the Court applies to this case and thus, renders a disposition solely on respondent's administrative liability.