Access over 20 million homework & study documents

132594227_noriega_vs_sison.doc

Content type
User Generated
Rating
Showing Page:
1/5
1
SECOND DIVISION
[Adm. Case No. 2266. October 27, 1983.]
HERMINIO R. NORIEGA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON,
respondent.
Herminio R. Noriega for complainant.
Emmanuel R. Sison in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT; PURPOSE THEREOF IS TO PROTECT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. The purpose of disbarment, therefore.
is not meant as a punishment depriving him of a source of livelihood but is rather
intended to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise this function should be competent, honorable and reliable in order that
the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in them.
2. ID.; DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS; BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS
UPON COMPLAINANT; CLEAR PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE NECESSARY
TO JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY. In disbarment
proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to
exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
established by clear, convincing. and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious
consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this
Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to
justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS; LEGAL
PRESUMPTIONS OF INNOCENCE AND PERFORMANCE OF DUTY,
ENJOYED BY AN ATTORNEY. This Court has also held in In re Atty.
Felizarda M. de Guanan that to be made the basis of suspension or disbarment,
the record must disclose as free from doubt a case which compels the exercise
by this Court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done as
well as the motivation thereof must be clearly demonstrated. An attorney enjoys
the legal presumption that be is innocent of the charges preferred against him
until the contrary is proved; and as an officer of the court that he performed his
duty in accordance with his oath.
4. ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT; ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT IN CASE
AT BAR DO NOT WARRANT DISBARMENT OF RESPONDENT. Examining
the facts of this case. We hold that the allegations in the complaint do not warrant
disbarment of the respondent. There is no evidence that the respondent has
committed an act constituting deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath as a
lawyer, wilful disobedience of any lawful order of the court, or corruptly and
wilfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so.
5. ID.; ID.; APPEARANCE OF AN ATTORNEY IN AN ISOLATED CASE
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF LAW. This Court also holds
that under the facts complained of supported by the annexes and the answer of
respondent, likewise sustained by annexes attached thereto and the reply of the
complainant, the accusation that respondent with malice and deliberate intent to
evade the laws, assumed a different name, falsified his identity and represented
himself to be one "ATTY. MANUEL SISON" with offices at No. 605 EDSA,
Cubao, Quezon City at the times that he will handle private cases, is not
meritorious. Neither is the charge substantiated. The only case referred to is that
pending in the JDRC, Case No. E-01978 wherein respondent appeared as
counsel for the defendant. It being an isolated case, the same does not constitute
the practice of law, more so since respondent did not derive any pecuniary gain
for his appearance because respondent and defendant therein were close family
friends. Such act of the respondent in going out of his way to aid as counsel to a
close family friend should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of
harassment against respondent.
6. ID.; ID.; RULING IN ZETA vs. MALINAO (87 SCRA 303), NOT
APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. The ruling in Zeta vs. Malinao (87 SCRA

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/5
2
303) wherein the respondent was dismissed from the service because being a
government employee, he appeared as counsel in a private case, cannot be
applied in the case at bar because the respondent in said Zeta case had
appeared as counsel without permission from his superiors.
D E C I S I O N
GUERRERO, J p:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed on June 3, 1981 by Herminio R. Noriega
against Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison (admitted to the Bar on March 31, 1976) on the
ground of malpractice through gross misrepresentation and falsification.
Complainant Noriega alleges that respondent Sison is a regular and permanent
employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a Hearing
Officer and as such, "is mandated to observe strictly the civil service rules and
regulations, more particularly . . . the prohibition of government employees to
practice their professions"; that to circumvent the prohibition and to evade the
law, respondent assumed a different name, falsified his identity and represented
himself to be one "Atty. Manuel Sison", with offices at No. 605 EDSA, Cubao,
Quezon City, "at the times that he will handle private cases"; that "Manuel Sison"
is not listed as a member of the Bar in the records of the Supreme Court; that
under his said assumed name, respondent is representing one Juan Sacquing,
the defendant in Case No. E-01978 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court of Manila, submitting pleadings therein signed by him (respondent) under
his assumed name, despite his full knowledge that "Manuel Sison" is not a
member of the Bar and that his acts in doing so are illegal and unlawful. 1 Xerox
copies of pertinent documents, pleadings, orders and notices are annexed to the
complaint to support the material allegations therein.
As required, respondent filed his Answer on August 20, 1981. He attached
thereto a copy of the written authorization given by Julio A. Sulit, Jr., Associate
Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, for him to appear as
counsel of Juan Sacquing, a close family friend, in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court (JDRC) of Manila. Respondent alleges that he never held himself
out to the public as a practicing lawyer; that he provided legal services to
Sacquing in view of close family friendship and for free; that he never
represented himself deliberately and intentionally as "Atty. Manuel Sison" in the
Manila JDRC where, in the early stages of his appearance, he always signed the
minutes as "Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison", and in one instance, he even made the
necessary correction when the court staff wrote his name as "Atty. Manuel
Sison"; that due to the "inept and careless work of the clerical staff of the JDRC",
notices were sent to "Atty. Manuel Sison", at 605 EDSA, Cubao, Quezon City,
where respondent's parents conduct a printing office and establishment, which
notices were honored by the personnel of said office as respondent's family has
called respondent by the nickname "Manuel"; that respondent did not feel any
necessity to correct this error of the JDRC since he "could use his nickname
'Manuel' interchangeably with his original true name as a formal name, and its
use was not done for a fraudulent purpose nor to misrepresent"; and, that this
administrative case is only one of the numerous baseless complaints brought by
complainant against respondent, the former being a disgruntled loser in an
injunction case in the SEC heard before respondent as Hearing Officer.
In resolving this disbarment case, We must initially emphasize the degree of
integrity and respectability attached to the law profession. There is no denying
that the profession of an attorney is required after a long and laborious study. By
years of patience, zeal and ability the attorney acquires a fixed means of support
for himself and his family. This is not to say, however, that the emphasis is on the
pecuniary value of this profession but rather on the social prestige and
intellectual standing necessarily arising from and attached to the same by reason
of the fact that every attorney is deemed an officer of the court.
The importance of the dual aspects of the legal profession has been wisely put
by Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Court when he said:

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/5

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
SECOND DIVISION [Adm. Case No. 2266. October 27, 1983.] HERMINIO R. NORIEGA, complainant, vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL R. SISON, respondent. Herminio R. Noriega for complainant. Emmanuel R. Sison in his own behalf. SYLLABUS 1. ATTORNEYS; DISBARMENT; PURPOSE THEREOF IS TO PROTECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. — The purpose of disbarment, therefore. is not meant as a punishment depriving him of a source of livelihood but is rather intended to protect the administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this function should be competent, honorable and reliable in order that the courts and clients may rightly repose confidence in them. 2. ID.; DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS; BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON COMPLAINANT; CLEAR PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY. — In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and for the court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing. and satisfactory proof. Considering the serious consequences of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, this Court has consistently held that clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty. 3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS; LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS OF INNOCENCE AND PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, ENJOYED BY AN ATTORNEY. — This Court has also held in In re Atty. Felizarda M. de Guanan that to be made the basis of ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4