Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Ecraela vs. Pangalangan AC No. 10676, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    Respondent, a lawyer, was accused of elicit relations, chronic womanizing, and abuse of authority through a petition for disbarment filed by the complainant. The respondent had engaged in adulterous affairs while married and had children, bribed government officials, and brought disrepute to the legal profession. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his grossly immoral conduct, which warranted his disbarment from practicing law. Good moral character is required to practice law and retain membership in the profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ecraela vs. Pangalangan AC No. 10676, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    27 views1 page
    Respondent, a lawyer, was accused of elicit relations, chronic womanizing, and abuse of authority through a petition for disbarment filed by the complainant. The respondent had engaged in adulterous affairs while married and had children, bribed government officials, and brought disrepute to the legal profession. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his grossly immoral conduct, which warranted his disbarment from practicing law. Good moral character is required to practice law and retain membership in the profession.

    Original Description:

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent, a lawyer, was accused of elicit relations, chronic womanizing, and abuse of authority through a petition for disbarment filed by the complainant. The respondent had engaged in adulterous affairs while married and had children, bribed government officials, and brought disrepute to the legal profession. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his grossly immoral conduct, which warranted his disbarment from practicing law. Good moral character is required to practice law and retain membership in the profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    Ecraela vs. Pangalangan AC No. 10676, September 7, 2015

    Uploaded by

    Markus Tran Moralde
    Respondent, a lawyer, was accused of elicit relations, chronic womanizing, and abuse of authority through a petition for disbarment filed by the complainant. The respondent had engaged in adulterous affairs while married and had children, bribed government officials, and brought disrepute to the legal profession. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP that the respondent violated the Canons of Professional Responsibility through his grossly immoral conduct, which warranted his disbarment from practicing law. Good moral character is required to practice law and retain membership in the profession.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    MH T.

    MORALDE

    Ecraela vs. Pangalangan AC No. 10676, September 7, 2015

    FACTS:

    A petition for disbarment was filed by Ecraela against Pangalangan for his elicit relations, chronic
    womanizing, abuse of authority as an educator, and other unscrupulous activities which cause undue
    embarrassment to the legal profession.

    Complainant and respondent are best friends and both graduated in UP College of Law.
    Respondent was formerly married to Sheila Jardolin (Jardolin) whom he had three children. It was alleged
    that respondent, while married to Jardolin had series of adulterous and elicit relations with married and
    unmarried women between the years 1990 and 2007. Respondent was also involved in bribing the Solicitor
    General and had been investigated and prosecuted for graft and corrupting.

    The IBP held that marriage is a inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall
    be protected by the State and that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of CPR and Rule 7.03, Canon 7
    of CPR which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct
    nor shall a lawyer be engaged in conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law nor shall he,
    whether in private or public life, behave in scandalous manner to discredit the legal profession.

    ISSUE: WON respondent committed gross immoral conduct which warrant his disbarment.

    HELD:

    Yes, respondent committed gross immoral conduct which warrants his disbarment.

    The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP’s resolution finding that Atty. Pangalangan’s grossly
    immoral conduct violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the CPR. Practice of law if a
    privilege given to those who possess and continue to possess the legal qualifications for the profession.
    Good moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar, but must also retained in order to
    maintain one’s good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.

    In this case, not only did the respondent failed to retain good moral character but also made a
    mockery of the institution of Marriage by maintaining elicit affairs. Thus, the Supreme Court held that
    disbarment is warranted when a lawyer abandons his wife and maintains an elicit relationship with
    another woman who has borne him a child.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy