Facts:
Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the allegations that respondent: promoted or sued a groundless, false or unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same; disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for law and the legal profession; did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleague and engaged in harassing tactics against opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law; and ruined and damaged not only the Gen. Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the entire water-consuming community as well.
Complainant filed for the disbarment due to the allegations that respondent: promoted or sued a groundless, false or unlawful suit, and gave aid and consent to the same; disobeyed laws of the land, promoted disrespect for law and the legal profession; did not conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleague and engaged in harassing tactics against opposing counsel; violated Canon 19 – A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law; and ruined and damaged not only the Gen. Mariano Alvarez Services Cooperative, Inc. (GEMASCO, INC.) but the entire water-consuming community as well.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred from the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether or not the respondent may be disbarred from the violations of Canons 1, 8, 10, 19, and Rule 12.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Held:
IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time.
IBP found that respondent is guilty of violating the Lawyer’s Oath as well as Canons 1, 8, 10, and Rule 12.03 of the Code. The Court also noted that respondent previously been suspended from the practice of law for six months for violation of the Code. It appears, however, that respondent has not reformed his ways, calling for a more severe penalty this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment