Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 724 views

    MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    Virgilio Mapalad Sr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Attorney Anselmo Echanez for misleading the court by filing an appeal indicating an MCLE compliance number without a valid date of issuance. The IBP recommended disbarment based on Echanez ignoring court orders and having previous sanctions. The court held that Echanez violated legal ethics codes and disbarred him for his misconduct, striking his name from the attorney rolls.

    Copyright:

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

    MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    724 views1 page
    Virgilio Mapalad Sr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Attorney Anselmo Echanez for misleading the court by filing an appeal indicating an MCLE compliance number without a valid date of issuance. The IBP recommended disbarment based on Echanez ignoring court orders and having previous sanctions. The court held that Echanez violated legal ethics codes and disbarred him for his misconduct, striking his name from the attorney rolls.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    3.-MAPALAD-vs.-ECHANEZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Virgilio Mapalad Sr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Attorney Anselmo Echanez for misleading the court by filing an appeal indicating an MCLE compliance number without a valid date of issuance. The IBP recommended disbarment based on Echanez ignoring court orders and having previous sanctions. The court held that Echanez violated legal ethics codes and disbarred him for his misconduct, striking his name from the attorney rolls.

    Copyright:

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

    MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ

    Uploaded by

    Claribel Domingo Bayani
    Virgilio Mapalad Sr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Attorney Anselmo Echanez for misleading the court by filing an appeal indicating an MCLE compliance number without a valid date of issuance. The IBP recommended disbarment based on Echanez ignoring court orders and having previous sanctions. The court held that Echanez violated legal ethics codes and disbarred him for his misconduct, striking his name from the attorney rolls.

    Copyright:

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

    3. A.C.

    10911, June 6, 2017


    VIRGILIO MAPALAD SR. vs. ATTY. ANSELMO ECHANEZ

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    The plaintiff filed an administrative case/complaint for disbarment
    against the respondent. That the plaintiffs won in an action for
    Recovery of Possession and Damages. The respondent filed a Notice
    of Appeal indicating thereof his MCLE Compliance Number without
    indicating the date of issuance. The plaintiff discovered that
    respondent has no MCLE compliance yet, reiterating that
    respondent’s act of misleading the Court, parties and counsels is a
    serious malpractice and grave misconduct. Respondent ignored
    court orders despite notice. IBP rendered its report and
    recommendation for the disbarment of Atty. Echanez.

    ISSUE:
    Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the
    allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?

    HELD:
    The Court held that the respondent violated Canon 1 - Rule 1.01,
    Canon 10 - Rule 10.1, Canon 17, Canon 18 and his Lawyer’s Oath.
    Respondent’s act of ignoring court orders despite notice exhibited
    unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. The
    respondent has two previous cases and sanctioned twice by IBP for
    engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission vis-à-vis
    his act of using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings on
    the present case. Respondent’s acts of misconduct are clearly
    manifested; thus, the Court ordered his disbarment and his name was
    ordered stricken from the Rolls of Attorneys.

    You might also like