Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Dumlao Vs - Camacho

    Uploaded by

    Elsha Damolo
    The case involved Judge Dumlao, who presided over a case involving Atty. Camacho's client. When the new counsel filed a motion for appeal, Atty. Camacho threatened and attempted to bribe Judge Dumlao. Camacho said he had connections to high officials and could get Dumlao removed. He also offered to share his legal fees with Dumlao in exchange for denying the appeal. Additionally, Camacho threatened the court sheriff to sign a document, but the sheriff refused due to proper procedures. The IBP Commission found Camacho guilty of influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers, and disrespecting processes. The court agreed

    Copyright:

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

    Dumlao Vs - Camacho

    Uploaded by

    Elsha Damolo
    1K views1 page
    The case involved Judge Dumlao, who presided over a case involving Atty. Camacho's client. When the new counsel filed a motion for appeal, Atty. Camacho threatened and attempted to bribe Judge Dumlao. Camacho said he had connections to high officials and could get Dumlao removed. He also offered to share his legal fees with Dumlao in exchange for denying the appeal. Additionally, Camacho threatened the court sheriff to sign a document, but the sheriff refused due to proper procedures. The IBP Commission found Camacho guilty of influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers, and disrespecting processes. The court agreed

    Original Description:

    Dumlao vs. Camacho

    Original Title

    Dumlao vs.camacho.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved Judge Dumlao, who presided over a case involving Atty. Camacho's client. When the new counsel filed a motion for appeal, Atty. Camacho threatened and attempted to bribe Judge Dumlao. Camacho said he had connections to high officials and could get Dumlao removed. He also offered to share his legal fees with Dumlao in exchange for denying the appeal. Additionally, Camacho threatened the court sheriff to sign a document, but the sheriff refused due to proper procedures. The IBP Commission found Camacho guilty of influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers, and disrespecting processes. The court agreed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views1 page

    Dumlao Vs - Camacho

    Uploaded by

    Elsha Damolo
    The case involved Judge Dumlao, who presided over a case involving Atty. Camacho's client. When the new counsel filed a motion for appeal, Atty. Camacho threatened and attempted to bribe Judge Dumlao. Camacho said he had connections to high officials and could get Dumlao removed. He also offered to share his legal fees with Dumlao in exchange for denying the appeal. Additionally, Camacho threatened the court sheriff to sign a document, but the sheriff refused due to proper procedures. The IBP Commission found Camacho guilty of influence peddling, attempted bribery, threatening court officers, and disrespecting processes. The court agreed

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest:​ ​Dumlao vs.

    Camacho

    FACTS:

    Judge Dumlao (the complainant) was the presiding judge on one of the cases handled by
    Atty. Camacho (the respondent) involving the Pathways Trading International., Inc. (the
    defendants) which filed a motion for summary judgment however the RTC denied the motion
    whereas the court concluded that there is no genuine issue on the case and grants the plaintiffs
    motion for summary judgment instead. Also, the court then ordered the defendants to pay the
    plaintiffs (see actual case for the list of amounts hehe).

    Then the new counsel, Atty. Baniqued, filed a motion for appeal and in order for Atty.
    Camacho to win the favor, the respondent called and threatened the complainant with the use of
    his influence (eh kasi nalaman ni Camacho na nagfile yung bagong counsel) that he has
    connections to the higher officials (specifically with the two supreme court justices; at that time
    it was CJ Sereno and AJ Justice Leonen) and have him removed from his position such as
    disbarment, and even told the complainant that he would supposedly be appointed by the then
    Pres. Aquino III as the Presidential Legal Consultant. Moreover, the respondent also bribed the
    complainant saying that he would share his atty’s fees with him in exchange for the denial of the
    notice of appeal filed by the defendants and the issuance of the writ of execution.

    The respondent also threatened the court sheriff to sign the garnishment order made by
    the respondent HIMSELF (sinabihan niya yung sheriff na kapag di mo pinirmahan ito,
    papatanggal kita mga ganooon) however, the sheriff refused to sign the document because there
    is a proper procedure and enforcement when it comes to notices such as those (under sec. 9, rule
    30 of the rules of the court).

    RULING:

    As per the recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, the respondent
    was found guilty of violating the ​code and the lawyer’s oath. ​The court accepts the findings and
    modifies and imposed penalties on the respondents such as:

    ● Influence peddling and Attempted Bribery


    ● Threatening Court Officers and Disrespecting Processes
    ● The commission recommended the penalty of disbarment imposed against the respondent
    for a suspension from the practice of law for 2 years however, due to the previous
    disbarment the penalty can no longer be imposed in the event that the resolution be
    applied of the same.
    Atty. Camacho GUILTY of violating Canons 10,11,13,19, and rules 10.01, 11.03,13.01
    and 19.01 of the code of professional responsibility and the lawyer’s oath

    *G​OODLUCK GUYS HAHA SANA MAINTINDIHAN NIYO GAWA KO MWA

    You might also like