In Caringal v. Judge Sy, the Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint against Judge Cornelio Sy, who was accused of gross misconduct and ignorance of the law for allowing a settlement without the complainant’s explicit consent. The Court emphasized that attorneys are presumed authorized to act on behalf of their clients unless proven otherwise. It also highlighted that administrative complaints should not replace proper judicial remedies.
In Martin v. Ala, the Supreme Court addressed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Leticia E. Ala, filed by her former brother-in-law, Denis Guy Martin. The Court found Atty. Ala administratively liable for urging police officers to shoot her nephew during an altercation, violating ethical standards. Additionally, she was reprimanded for using abusive language in legal pleadings. The Court imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months and one year, to be served successively.
In Lacida v. Subejano, the Supreme Court dismissed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Rejoice S. Subejano, who borrowed money from Megamitch Financial Resources Corporation while serving as its legal counsel. The Court found the transaction fell within exceptions to the prohibition on borrowing from clients under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA).
In the case of Lizada vs. Tecson, the Supreme Court disbarred Atty. Demosthenes S. Tecson for misappropriating ₱67 million of his clients’ funds from an expropriation case. Tecson claimed the funds were used to expedite proceedings, but the Court found this constituted bribery and violated legal ethics. He was ordered to return the misappropriated amount.
In Intia v. Ferrer, the Supreme Court addressed allegations against Judge Ferrer, including misconduct, business involvement, case delays, and courtroom demeanor. The Court dismissed most charges due to insufficient evidence but fined Judge Ferrer ₱35,000 for violating rules prohibiting judges from engaging in private business activities.
