ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE


ChanRobles Intellectual Property | www.debtkollect.com

politics.chanrobles.com

ChanRobles™ LawTube

laws.chanrobles.com

jurisprudence.chanrobles.com

Congratulations to the FIRST BATCH OF SUCCESSFUL ChanRobles Internet Bar Review Passers!

LIST OF THE 2 TOPNOTCHERS AND 137 SUCCESSFUL ChanRobles Internet Bar Review Passers in the 2011 Bar Exams!

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence



www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

A.M. No. 205     March 31, 1965

CANDIDO SAN LUIS, complainant, vs. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA, Respondent.

BENGZON, C.J.: chanrobles virtual law library

This is a complaint for the punishment or the disbarment of Benjamin B. Pineda.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Complainant alleged that a few months before December 1941, Benjamin B. Pineda had been expelled as member of the Bar; that notwithstanding such disbarment, Pineda continued to practice law; that in 1953 said Pineda was convicted, by final judgment, of the crime of robbery; that although President Magsaysay pardoned him conditionally, such pardon did not blot out the stain of moral misconduct. So, complainant prayed for action for contempt; or for a new disbarment, if after 1941, said Pineda had been reinstated to membership in the Bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The matter was referred to the Solicitor General whose report filed later and in due course, recommended that respondent should only be warned not to practice law again. Such recommendation rested on his finding that Pineda continued to practice law in Jolo during the latter part of 1941 (i.e., after he had been disbarred in July 1940) - but that no evidence proved legal practice by respondent after 1941.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Our records do not show that Pineda has ever been re-admitted to the Bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Now, considering that 1941 is too far away, we approve the recommendation; and the respondent is accordingly warned not to engage in the legal profession again, until he is regularly re-admitted thereto. Needless to say, practice of law by one who is disbarred constitutes contempt of court (U.S. vs. Ney, 8 Phil. 146; People vs. De Luna, 54 Off. Gaz. 6429.)

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.



ChanRobles™ LawTube

FEATURED DECISIONScralaw




google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

cralaw


QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 

  Copyright©1998-2011 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED