Screen-reader users, click here to turn off Google Instant.

Sign in

All
News
Videos
Images
MoreSearch tools
1.
o
o
o
o

o
o

About 71 results (0.55 seconds)

Search Results
Ethics - Lee vs Simando - Documents
docslide.us Documents
o

Oct 12, 2015 - case digest. ... Download Ethics - Lee vs Simando ... Lee vsTambago,
544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008 digested by Ms. Charo L. Bayani ...

Ethics - Lee vs Simando - Documents - DOCUMENTS.MX

documents.mx Documents
o

Oct 12, 2015 - Ethics - Lee vs Simando. Oct 12, 2015 ... Rayray vs. Chae Kyung
LeeDigest Flava Works Vs. Lee A. Momient, Jr., a/k/a Lee Moment.

Legprof Digest - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/doc/230360048/Legprof-Digest
o
o

Jun 19, 2014 - Legprof Digest - Download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf),
Text file (.txt) or read ... Simando was the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee from
November 2004 until January 8, 2008 ...... Ethics - Lee vs Simando.

Ethics Digests - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/doc/37118776/Ethics-Digests
o
o

Sep 8, 2010 - Ethics Digests - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File
(.pdf), Text ... Digested Cases for Legal Ethics .... Ethics - Lee vs Simando.

ethics digest - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/doc/98071389/ethics-digest
o
o

Jun 24, 2012 - ethics digest - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read
online for free. ... THE DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS vs.

Agrarian Reform Case Digest - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/doc/232841430/Agrarian-Reform-Case-Digest
o
o

Jul 7, 2014 - Agrarian Reform Case Digest - Download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx),
PDF File (.pdf), ... This Digest are not mine. ... Ethics - Lee vs Simando.

Businos v Ricafort.docx - Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/doc/207863655/Businos-v-Ricafort-docx
o

Feb 19, 2014 - Businos v Ricafort.docx - Download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF
File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read ... Case Digest. ... Ethics - Lee vs Simando.

legal ethics (19) uploads | Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/collections/6977218/legal-ethics
o

Lambino, Agpalo Legal Ethics Reviewer, and Barrios v Martinez

2004. ... Case Digest for Santiago vs Rafanan (Legal Ethics) ... Ethics - Lee vs
Simando.
[PDF]JUN

1 0 2D13tf/6uJ ~ - Supreme Court of the Philippines

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/9537.pdf
o
o

9537, for violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics of Lawyers. The facts ... Simando was
the retained counsel of complainant Dr. Lee from .... Josefina M. Aninon v.

Agrarian Reform Case Digest - Scribd

2c0de474c896fdb86256ea2015534c5e.proxysheep.com/.../Agrarian-Ref...
o

Jul 7, 2014 - This Digest are not mine. This Digest ... Ethics - Lee vs Simando. by
John Jeric Lim Digest Agrarian. Drew MG. Digest Agrarian. by Drew MG.

Bacolod - From your Internet address - Use precise location

- Learn more
Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

Next

Philippine Laws and

Cases - Atty. Manuel J.
Laserna Jr.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013

July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions

on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA:
A PHILIPPINE BLAWG
see - July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Legal and Judicial Ethics | LEXOTERICA: A
PHILIPPINE BLAWG
"x x x.

Attorney; Attorney-client relationship. Respondent Atty. Ramon SG

Cabanes, Jr. was charged for gross negligence in violation of Canon 17, and
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
The Supreme Court held him guilty of gross negligence. The relationship
between an attorney and his client is one imbued with utmost trust and
confidence. In this light, clients are led to expect that lawyers would be evermindful of their cause and accordingly exercise the required degree of diligence
in handling their affairs. Verily, a lawyer is expected to maintain at all times a high
standard of legal proficiency, and to devote his full attention, skill, and
competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it
for a fee or for free. A lawyers duty of competence and diligence includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to the counsels care or giving sound legal
advice, but also consists of properly representing the client before any court or

tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or conferences, preparing and filing the

required pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and
urging their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or
her to do so. While such negligence or carelessness is incapable of exact
formulation, the Court has consistently held that the lawyers mere failure to
perform the obligations due his client is per se a violation. Thus, the court
suspended respondent for six (6) months. Josefina Caranza Vda de Saldivar v.
Atty. Ramon SG Cabanes, Jr., A.C. No. 7749, July 8, 2013
Attorney; Conflict of interest. The rule prohibiting conflict of interest was
fashioned to prevent situations wherein a lawyer would be representing a client
whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or former clients. In the
same way, a lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same
or a substantially related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only
if the former client consents to it after consultation. The rule is grounded in the
fiduciary obligation of loyalty. Throughout the course of a lawyer-client
relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. Knowledge and information
gathered in the course of the relationship must be treated as sacred and guarded
with care. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence,
but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing, for only then
can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is
paramount in the administration of justice. The nature of that relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Contrary to Atty. Eras ill-conceived attempt to explain his disloyalty to Samson
and his group, the termination of the attorney-client relationship does not justify a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client. The spirit behind this rule is that the clients confidence once given should
not be stripped by the mere expiration of the professional employment. Even after
the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not do anything that will injuriously
affect his former client in any matter in which the lawyer previously represented
the client. Nor should the lawyer disclose or use any of the clients confidences
acquired in the previous relation. Thus, Atty. Era was found guilty of Rule 15.03 of
Canon 15 and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was

suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years. Ferdinand A. Samson v.
Atty. Edgardo O. Era, A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013.
Attorney; Disbarment and suspension of lawyers; Burden of proof. The
burden of proof in disbarment and suspension proceedings always rests on the
shoulders of the complainant. The Court exercises its disciplinary power only if
the complainant establishes the complaint by clearly preponderant evidence that
warrants the imposition of the harsh penalty. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the
legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges made against him until the
contrary is proved. An attorney is further presumed as an officer of the Court to
have performed his duties in accordance with his oath. In this case, complainants
failed to discharge their burden of proving that respondents ordered their
secretary to stamp a much later date instead of the actual date of receipt for the
purpose of extending the ten-day period within which to file a Motion for
Reconsideration under the NLRC Rules of Procedure. Such claim is merely
anchored on speculation and conjecture and not backed by any clear
preponderant evidence necessary to justify the imposition of administrative
penalty on a member of the Bar. Jaime Joven and Reynaldo C. Rasing v. Atty.
Pablo R. Cruz and Frankie O. Magsalin III, A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013.
Attorney; Honesty; Practice of law is not a right but a privilege. Lawyers
are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice.
They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and
the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings,
especially with the court. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins
lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing
the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the
rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Indeed,
the practice of law is not a right but merely a privilege bestowed upon by the
State upon those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of those
requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their
dealings is the very essence of a practitioners honorable membership in the
legal profession. Lawyers are required to act with the highest standard of
truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of litigation and in their relations

with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the courts. They
are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according
to the best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and
their clients. Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Atty. Nonnatus P. Chua, A.C. No.
6942, July 17, 2013.
Court personnel; Gross dishonesty; Misrepresentation of eligibility;
Penalty. Respondent, a court stenographer III, was charged with gross
dishonesty in connection with her Civil Service eligibility where she was accused
of causing another person to take the Civil Service Eligibility Examination in her
stead. Before the Decision was imposed, however, respondent already resigned.
The Supreme Court held that the respondents resignation from the service did
not cause the Court to lose its jurisdiction to proceed against her in this
administrative case. Her cessation from office by virtue of her intervening
resignation did not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint against
her, for the act complained of had been committed when she was still in the
service. Nor did such cessation from office render the administrative case moot
and academic. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities
incurred would be easily avoided or evaded.
Respondents dismissal from the service is the appropriate penalty, with her
eligibility to be cancelled, her retirement benefits to be forfeited, and her
disqualification from re-employment in the government service to be perpetual.
Her intervening resignation necessarily means that the penalty of dismissal could
no longer be implemented against her. Instead, fine is imposed, the determination
of the amount of which is subject to the sound discretion of the Court. Concerned
Citizen V. Nonita v. Catena, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Br. 50, Puerto Princesa,
Palawan, A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013.
Court personnel; Misconduct; Penalty under the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; Effect of death in an
administrative case. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior,
wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior. A misconduct is grave or gross
if it is out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful or such conduct
as is not to be excused. Respondent Ongs and Buencaminos acts of using the

levied car for personal errands and losing it while under their safekeeping
constitute grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. These are flagrant and
shameful acts and should not be countenanced. Respondents acts warrant the
penalty of dismissal as provided in Rule 10, Section 46 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. As for respondent Buencamino, his
death is not a ground for the dismissal of the Complaint against him. Respondent
Buencaminos acts take away the publics faith in the judiciary, and these acts
should be sanctioned despite his death.
Sheriffs are reminded that they are repositories of public trust and are under
obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best
of their abilities. Being frontline officials of the justice system, sheriffs and
deputy sheriffs must always strive to maintain public trust in the performance of
their duties. Office of the Court Administrator v. Noel R. Ong, Deputy Sheriff, Br.
49, et al., A.M. No. P-09-2690, July 9, 2013.
Court personnel; Simple neglect of duty; Penalty under the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases; Mitigating circumstances. The
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) charged respondent Sheriff lV
Famero with Gross Neglect of Duty amounting to Gross Misconduct for refusing
to implement the Writ of Execution issued in a civil case involving DBP. The
Supreme Court held that the respondent cannot fully be excused for his failure to
make periodic reports in the proceedings taken on the writ, as mandated by
Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
For the respondents lapses in the procedures in the implementation of the writ of
execution, he was found guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure of
an employee to give attention to the task expected of him. Under Section 52(B)(1)
of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect
of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension from office for one (1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal for the
second offense. In the imposition of the appropriate penalty, Section 53 of the
same Rules allows the disciplining authority to consider mitigating circumstances
in favor of the respondent. The court considered his length of service in the
Judiciary, acknowledgment of infractions, remorse and other family
circumstances, among others, in determining the proper penalty. He was also

found to be entitled to the following mitigating circumstances: (1) his more than
24 years of service in the Judiciary; (2) a clear record other than for the present
infraction which is his first offense, (3) the resistance of the informal settlers to
leave the property; (4) fear for his life; and (5) his well-grounded recognition that
he could not undertake any demolition without the appropriate court order. After
considering the attendant facts and the mitigating circumstances, the court also
considered that the efficiency of court operations may ensue if the respondents
work were to be left unattended by reason of his suspension. Thus, he was
imposed the penalty of fine instead of suspension from service. Development
Bank of the Philippines, etc. Vs. Damvin V. Famero, Sheriff IV, RTC, Br. 43,
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, A.M. No. P-0-2789, July 31, 2013.
Judge; Gross Inefficiency; Duties include prompt disposition or
resolution of cases. As a frontline official of the Judiciary, a trial judge should
always act with efficiency and probity. He is duty-bound not only to be faithful to
the law, but also to maintain professional competence. The pursuit of excellence
ought always to be his guiding principle. Such dedication is the least that he can
do to sustain the trust and confidence that the public have reposed in him and the
institution he represents.
The Court cannot overstress its policy on prompt disposition or resolution of
cases. Nonetheless, the Court has been mindful of the plight of our judges and
understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of
their businesses. Hence, the Court has allowed extensions of time to decide
cases beyond the 90-day period. All that a judge needs to do is to request and
justify an extension of time to decide the cases, and the Court has almost
invariably granted such request. Judge Carbonells failure to decide several
cases within the reglementary period, without justifiable and credible reasons,
constituted gross inefficiency. Considering that Judge Carbonell has retired due
to disability, his poor health condition may have greatly contributed to his inability
to efficiently perform his duties as a trial judge. That mitigated his administrative
liability, for which reason the Court reduced the recommended penalty of fine
from P50,000 to P20,000. Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to
Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and Resolve Pending Motions in the RTC,
Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 9, 2013.

x x x."
Posted by Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr. at 5:32 PM

No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this post

Create a Link

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Follow by Email
Submit

About Me
Philippine Laws and Cases - Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.
Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Atty. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.- Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com. Tels. . (63) (2) 8725443 / 8462539.
Text/call staff Primo Cueva- (63) (921) 2565583. Law office address: Unit 15, Star Arcade, C.V. Starr
Ave., Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, Philippines 1740. PROFILE: Atty. LASERNA
founded LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES (LCMLAW) in 1994.He was law professor of
FEU, Manila, 1985 to 2006 (ret.). Educ.: AB Journ., UP, Diliman, QC, 1975; Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.),
cum laude, FEU, 1984; Master of Laws (LL.M.), UST, (cand.), Manila [as FEU fellow, 1998-2000].
Honors: 3rd placer, 1984 Bar Exams (90.95%; only 22% passed); Meralco pre-law scholar; Cocofed
law scholar; Cocofed management scholar (AIM, Makati); FEU fellow (LLM, UST). Bar leader in
southern Metro Manila area since 1995. Founded Las Pinas City Bar Assn (2001). Served as
director/sec./vice pres., IBP PPLM Ch., 1995-2007.
View my complete profile

Popular Posts

Qualified theft defined; proper penalty explained

Item No "x x x. The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 9 of the Revised Penal Code are
as follows: (1) t...
Estafa; sample counter-affidavit
Below is a sample counter-affidavit prepared by Atty. Manuel J. LAserna Jr. involving Estafa undergoing
preliminary investigation bef...

Estafa (deceit/swindling) under Art. 315, Rev. Penal Code

For legal research purposes of my readers, may I share the jurisprudential part of a motion for reconsideration I
have just filed with the...

Oral defamation, slander - G.R. No. 160351

See - G.R. No. 160351 "x x x. The issues are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the
conviction of petitioner ...

Jurisdiction of Philippine courts

I am presenting below a brief digest of the jurisdiction of Philippine courts as contained in BATAS PAMBANSA
Blg. 129, as amended. for the ...

Contract to sell vs. contract of sale explained - G.R. No. 188064

G.R. No. 188064 (click link) "x x x. The Courts Ruling The petition lacks merit. The Court agrees with the ruling
of...

Titling of public lands

For purposes of legal research of foreign readers visiting this blog, on the subject of the legal system involving
the titling of public la...

Estafa and Blg. 22; Complaint w/ laws and jurisprudence.

I wish to share a criminal complaint for Estafa and BP 22 that I prepared recently, with focus on the legal
research aspect thereof, for t...

Rules on Parole and Pardon

The controversial plan of Pres. Gloria Arroyo to pardon former Pres. Joseph Estrada, who has been convicted
of the crime of plunder (penalty...

Forum shopping and res judicata.

In the case of ALONSO, ET. AL. VS. RELAMIDA, En Banc, AC No. 8481, August 3, 2010 , the Supreme Court
found the respondent Atty. Ibaro B. Re...

Links

Ltigation, Appeals, Justice System - Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices

Followers
Search This Blog
Search

Blog Archive

2016 (98)

2015 (778)

2014 (339)

2013 (468)

December (64)

November (10)

Pari delicto doctrine and insider trading | Inquir...

Appeal procedure in labor cases -

Lawyer suspended for failure to account for client...

Pork barrel system is unconstitutional - SC

DOJ faces tough task of rebuilding court records i...

SC decision restores normal constitutional order |...

Supreme Court slays PDAF | Inquirer News

July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Le...

2014 holidays

2013 bar exams

October (38)

September (17)

August (40)

July (67)

June (36)

May (22)

April (46)

March (65)

February (46)

January (17)

2012 (670)

2011 (489)

2010 (285)

2009 (235)

2008 (182)

2007 (114)

Total Pageviews

3,419,122
News
Apple Google Microsoft
'Error 53' fury mounts asApple software update threatens to kill your iPhone 6
The Guardian
Freelance photographer and self-confessed Appleaddict Antonio Olmos says this happened to his phone a few
weeks ago after he upgraded his software. Olmos had previously had his handset repaired while on an
assignment for the Guardian in Macedonia ...
Apple owes $626 million in damages after losing huge patent case
CNNMoney
A jury has ordered Apple to pay $626 million in damages after finding that iMessage, FaceTime and
other Apple software infringed on another company's patents. In a case that has been bouncing around the
court system since 2012, VirnetX accused Apple of ...
Related Articles
Apple Tells Supreme Court It Shouldn't Bother Hearing Samsung's Appeal

Re/code
Samsung has already paidApple $548 million in the case, but says the legal principles at stake demand that it
continue to fight the jury verdict, which was upheld by the Federal Circuit appeals court. Samsung was found to
infringe on both design and...
Related Articles
Apple will soon let customers trade in busted iPhones toward a new one
The Verge
Apple's been running an iPhone trade-in program for some time now, which is different than the iPhone
Upgrade Program that the company launched last year. With the former, customers can hand over their old
iPhone (or any smartphone) to Appleand ...
Related Articles
powered by

powered by

Watermark template. Powered by Blogger.