Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 410 views

    Toledo v. Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Francis Xavier Sinon
    Priscila Toledo filed a complaint against lawyer Erlinda Abalos with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) after Abalos failed to repay a P20,000 loan after 6 months. Abalos ignored orders from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to respond to the complaint. While the Commission recommended a 6-month suspension for ignoring their orders, they acknowledged that they had no jurisdiction over a private financial obligation. The Supreme Court agreed that the IBP could not discipline a lawyer over a private debt, but found that a 1-month suspension was warranted for ignoring the lawful orders of the Commission.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Toledo v. Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Francis Xavier Sinon
    410 views1 page
    Priscila Toledo filed a complaint against lawyer Erlinda Abalos with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) after Abalos failed to repay a P20,000 loan after 6 months. Abalos ignored orders from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to respond to the complaint. While the Commission recommended a 6-month suspension for ignoring their orders, they acknowledged that they had no jurisdiction over a private financial obligation. The Supreme Court agreed that the IBP could not discipline a lawyer over a private debt, but found that a 1-month suspension was warranted for ignoring the lawful orders of the Commission.

    Original Description:

    Legal Ethics

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Priscila Toledo filed a complaint against lawyer Erlinda Abalos with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) after Abalos failed to repay a P20,000 loan after 6 months. Abalos ignored orders from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to respond to the complaint. While the Commission recommended a 6-month suspension for ignoring their orders, they acknowledged that they had no jurisdiction over a private financial obligation. The Supreme Court agreed that the IBP could not discipline a lawyer over a private debt, but found that a 1-month suspension was warranted for ignoring the lawful orders of the Commission.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    410 views1 page

    Toledo v. Abalos

    Uploaded by

    Francis Xavier Sinon
    Priscila Toledo filed a complaint against lawyer Erlinda Abalos with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) after Abalos failed to repay a P20,000 loan after 6 months. Abalos ignored orders from the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to respond to the complaint. While the Commission recommended a 6-month suspension for ignoring their orders, they acknowledged that they had no jurisdiction over a private financial obligation. The Supreme Court agreed that the IBP could not discipline a lawyer over a private debt, but found that a 1-month suspension was warranted for ignoring the lawful orders of the Commission.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Priscila TOLEDO v. Atty. Erlinda ABALOS A.C. No. 51 1. Se!

    te"#er $%& 1%%%

    PA Legal Ethics Case No. 13 'rancis (avier Sinon

    'ACTS) This is a case o* a la+yer +ho #orro+ed "oney +itho,t !aying it #ac-. Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months, guaranteed by a Promissory Note from respondent. After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated demands, respondent failed to pay her obligation. Afraid that she will not reco er her money, .s. Toledo so,ght the hel! o* the /ntegrated Bar o* the Phili!!ines 0/BP1& +hich re*erred the "atter to the Co""ission on Bar Disci!line. The !ommission issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to file her Answer to the letter" complaint of #s. Toledo to which res!ondent did not ans+er. $espite due notice by the %n estigating !ommissioner &en'amin &. &ernardino, respondent failed to appear in the hearings set. Thus, complainant was allowed to !resent her evidence ex-parte, to which the !ommission passed a resolution recommending the suspension from the practice of law of respondent for a !eriod o* si2 "onths (for her flouting resistance to lawful orders of the !ourt and illustrating her despiciency of her oath of office as a lawyer.) The Co""ission& ho+ever& declined to disci!line her *or *ailing to "eet her *inancial o#ligation& the sa"e having #een inc,rred in her !rivate ca!acity. /SS3E) *hether a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for misconduct in his non" professional or pri ate capacity. 4ELD) NO. *e agree with the !ommission that respondent may not be disciplined either by the %&P or by this !ourt for failing to pay her obligation to complainant. !omplainant+s remedy is to file a collection case #e*ore a reg,lar co,rt o* 5,stice against respondent. The general r,le is that a la+yer "ay not #e s,s!ended or dis#arred& and the co,rt "ay not ordinarily ass,"e 5,risdiction to disci!line hi"& *or "iscond,ct in his non6!ro*essional or !rivate ca!acity. 4O7E8E9& the reco""endation to s,s!end respondent from the practice of law for si2 "onths to be grossly dis!ro!ortionate to the act co"!lained o*, her failure to appear before the !ommission on &ar $iscipline of the %&P. *ith her legal ,nowledge and expertise, respondent may ha e ,nown all along that the !ommission has no 'urisdiction o er a complaint for collection of a sum of money which she borrowed in her pri ate capacity. -ence, her adamant refusal to appear before said body. *e do not, of course, ignore the fact that by irtue of one+s membership in the %&P, a lawyer thus submits himself to the disciplinary authority of the organi.ation. -owe er, as the complaint lodged against the respondent in the case at hand did not pertain to an act that she committed in the exercise of her profession, the %&P need not assume 'urisdiction to discipline respondent. %t was, howe er, still necessary for respondent to ac,nowledge the orders of the !ommission in deference to its authority o er her as a member of the %&P. -er wanton disregard of its lawful orders sub'ects her to disciplinary sanction. Thus, her s,s!ension *ro" the !ractice o* la+ *or ONE .ONT4 is +arranted.

    You might also like