Who (Parties) and What (Case No. / Date) JOSELITO C. CABALLERO, Complainant
Who (Parties) and What (Case No. / Date) JOSELITO C. CABALLERO, Complainant
Respondent - Respondent attached a copy of his last letter stating that he was
(defenses) always ready to return the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 0-94.
- That it was complainant who failed to claim the said title form
respondent.
- He reasoned that he cannot release the said title to anyone but
only to the complainant in the interest of security.
- That his advance age was also the reason of his inability to
personally deliver the said title.
- He argued that he cannot return the owner’s duplicate of OCT
No. 0-94 since it was not complainant who gave it to him.
- That he received the said copy as proof of his success in
handling LRC Case as complainant’s counsel.
- He reiterated complainant’s failure to personally claim the said
copy of the OCT from him.
- He argued that he was only forced to accept a case without first
having his suspension lifted by the court because of financial
necessity, and that he firmly believed that his suspension was
automatically lifted.
-
What is the The OBC recommended that the respondent’s motion to lift order
recommendation of the of suspension be denied, and to impose a more severe penalty
IBP-CBD? due to the continuing failure of respondent to comply with the
Court’s Decision dated September 26, 2011.
What is the recommendation n/a
of OCA?
Issues raised to the SC Whether or not respondent is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR).
Dispositive portion Respondent’s actuations are violative of the oath he took before
(final decision) admission to the practice of law. As an officer of the court, it is a
lawyer’s duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
Respondent cannot escape the fact that he disobeyed the order of
the court by reasoning that it was complainant’s fault for not
personally claiming the copy of the OCT from him.