Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, The Respondent, Was Found

    Uploaded by

    ZannyRyanQuiroz
    90 views3 pages
    (1) Esteban Bumanglad was suspended from practicing law for two years for gross immoral conduct. He filed several unsuccessful motions for reconsideration. (2) Bumanglad then petitioned the President of the Philippines to set aside the Supreme Court's suspension order through a presidential decree. However, he later retracted and acknowledged not observing the separation of powers. (3) The Supreme Court administered a reprimand to Bumanglad for gross ignorance of the law and constitution in asking the president to override the court. Since he apologized, the court viewed his misconduct leniently but warned of severe consequences for future transgressions.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Bumanlag v Bumanlag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) Esteban Bumanglad was suspended from practicing law for two years for gross immoral conduct. He filed several unsuccessful motions for reconsideration. (2) Bumanglad then petitioned the President of the Philippines to set aside the Supreme Court's suspension order through a presidential decree. However, he later retracted and acknowledged not observing the separation of powers. (3) The Supreme Court administered a reprimand to Bumanglad for gross ignorance of the law and constitution in asking the president to override the court. Since he apologized, the court viewed his misconduct leniently but warned of severe consequences for future transgressions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views3 pages

    Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, The Respondent, Was Found

    Uploaded by

    ZannyRyanQuiroz
    (1) Esteban Bumanglad was suspended from practicing law for two years for gross immoral conduct. He filed several unsuccessful motions for reconsideration. (2) Bumanglad then petitioned the President of the Philippines to set aside the Supreme Court's suspension order through a presidential decree. However, he later retracted and acknowledged not observing the separation of powers. (3) The Supreme Court administered a reprimand to Bumanglad for gross ignorance of the law and constitution in asking the president to override the court. Since he apologized, the court viewed his misconduct leniently but warned of severe consequences for future transgressions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    De Bumanglag vs. Bumanglag [A.M. No.

    188 November 29,


    1976]
    Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Saturday, February 25, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

    Facts: Esteban T. Bumanglad, the respondent, was found


    by the Court in its decision of September 24, 1973 guilty of
    gross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from
    the practice of law for a period of two (2) years;
    Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration but
    the same were denied;
    As a result of such denial, the respondent wrote a petition
    to the President of the Philippines that he promulgate(s) a
    decree that the order of suspension by the Supreme Court
    be set aside and that your humble self be allowed to
    become an active member of the New Society.
    The respondent alleged in the same petition that he was
    deprived of due process of law;
    The Clerk of Court, by way of an indorsement from the
    Assistant Executive Secretary, received a copy of the
    petition and was requested to comment and/or
    appropriate action on the subject matter;

    However, in a subsequent letter to the President the


    respondent retracted and acknowledged his non
    observance of protocol of separation of powers;
    In the end, the respondent asked for an apology from the
    members of the Honorable Court.
    Issues:
    (1) Whether or not respondent may be disciplined for
    gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in not
    observing the protocol of separation of power by asking
    the President to set aside by decree the decision of the
    Court imposing suspension upon the respondent
    (2) Whether or not a decision duly promulgated by the
    Supreme Court may be set aside by a Presidential Decree
    Held:
    (1) Respondent is hereby administered a reprimand for
    gross ignorance of the law and of the Constitution in
    having asked the President to set aside by decree the
    Court's decision which suspended him for two years from
    the practice of law, with warning that the commission of
    any transgression in the future of his oath and duties as a
    member of the bar will be severely dealt with.

    (2) Since respondent has apologized for his "big mistake"


    and now appreciates that under the fundamental principle
    of separation of powers enshrined in both the 1935 and
    1973 Constitutions, a decision of this Court may not be set
    aside by the President, the Court is disposed to view his
    misconduct and/or ignorance with liberality and will
    administer a reprimand with warning of severe action on
    any future transgressions, considering respondent's
    unenviable record.

    You might also like