Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pimentel Vs Llorente Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rolando Reubal
    266 views1 page
    Respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, were accused of tampering with votes received during the 1995 elections by complainant Pimentel, a candidate. Pimentel alleged his votes were reduced while other candidates received more votes than actual. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The Supreme Court held respondents guilty of misconduct for certifying incorrect statements of votes and certificates of canvass that showed discrepancies, violating their duty to not engage in unlawful conduct or do falsehood.

    Original Description:

    Pimentel vs Llorente

    Original Title

    Pimentel vs Llorente Case Digest

    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
    Respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, were accused of tampering with votes received during the 1995 elections by complainant Pimentel, a candidate. Pimentel alleged his votes were reduced while other candidates received more votes than actual. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The Supreme Court held respondents guilty of misconduct for certifying incorrect statements of votes and certificates of canvass that showed discrepancies, violating their duty to not engage in unlawful conduct or do falsehood.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    266 views1 page

    Pimentel Vs Llorente Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rolando Reubal
    Respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers, were accused of tampering with votes received during the 1995 elections by complainant Pimentel, a candidate. Pimentel alleged his votes were reduced while other candidates received more votes than actual. Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The Supreme Court held respondents guilty of misconduct for certifying incorrect statements of votes and certificates of canvass that showed discrepancies, violating their duty to not engage in unlawful conduct or do falsehood.

    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 1

    Pimentel vs Llorente

    Adm. Case No. 4680, August 29, 2000

    Facts:

    Complainant was then a candidate during the May 8, 1995 elections. He filed this complaint against respondent
    Attys. Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon, in their capacity as members of the Pasig City Board of
    Canvassers, for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the lawyer’s oath. Complainant alleges
    that respondents tampered with the votes received by him, with the result that, as shown in the Statements of
    Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC), other senatorial candidates were credited with votes which were
    above the number of votes they actually received while, on the other hand, petitioner’s votes were reduced.
    Respondents denied the allegations, claiming that the errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to
    honest mistake, oversight, and/or fatigue.

    Issue:

    Whether or not respondents are guilty of misconduct.

    Held:

    Considering the facts, the Supreme Court held that respondents are guilty of misconduct.

    Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, despite the fact that the discrepancies, especially the
    double recording of the returns from 22 precincts and the variation in the tabulation of votes as reflected in the
    SoVs and CoC were apparent on the face of the documents and that the variation involves substantial number of
    votes, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in
    “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to
    lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no
    falsehood.”

    You might also like