Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 249 views

    Foronda Vs Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Tata Bentor
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines lifted the two-year suspension of Atty. Arnold Guerrero from practicing law that was originally imposed for forum shopping. While acknowledging his transgressions, the Court found Guerrero to be contrite and remorseful after more than 17 months of suspension. Though warned against future misconduct, Guerrero was allowed to resume practicing law given his vow to be more careful and the Court's aim of balancing justice with compassion.

    Copyright:

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

    Foronda Vs Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Tata Bentor
    249 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines lifted the two-year suspension of Atty. Arnold Guerrero from practicing law that was originally imposed for forum shopping. While acknowledging his transgressions, the Court found Guerrero to be contrite and remorseful after more than 17 months of suspension. Though warned against future misconduct, Guerrero was allowed to resume practicing law given his vow to be more careful and the Court's aim of balancing justice with compassion.

    Original Title

    Foronda vs Guerrero

    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?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines lifted the two-year suspension of Atty. Arnold Guerrero from practicing law that was originally imposed for forum shopping. While acknowledging his transgressions, the Court found Guerrero to be contrite and remorseful after more than 17 months of suspension. Though warned against future misconduct, Guerrero was allowed to resume practicing law given his vow to be more careful and the Court's aim of balancing justice with compassion.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    249 views2 pages

    Foronda Vs Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    Tata Bentor
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines lifted the two-year suspension of Atty. Arnold Guerrero from practicing law that was originally imposed for forum shopping. While acknowledging his transgressions, the Court found Guerrero to be contrite and remorseful after more than 17 months of suspension. Though warned against future misconduct, Guerrero was allowed to resume practicing law given his vow to be more careful and the Court's aim of balancing justice with compassion.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    A.C. No.

    5469

    January 27, 2006

    RICARDO A. FORONDA, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. ARNOLD V. GUERRERO, Respondent. RESOLUTION CALLEJO, SR., J.: In a Decision dated August 10, 2004, this Court found Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero of "trifling with judicial processes by resorting to forum shopping" for filing multifarious petitions, motions and actions concerning the sale of a particular property and suspended him from the practice of law for two (2) years. On February 27, 2005, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court resolved to deny with finality in a Resolution dated February 15, 2004. On May 3, 2005, respondent filed an "Ex-Parte Plea for Clemency" pleading for compassion and praying that the suspension meted against him be lifted immediately. According to respondent, he is fully aware that his suspension was a "corrective and a punitive measure for his professional indiscretion." He pleads that he be given a chance to prove that he is now reformed and that he is worthy of the compassion and clemency which the Court may give him. We grant the petition. It has been more than 17 months since we ordered respondents suspension from the practice of law. To our mind, this is more than enough time for him to reflect and realize the gravity of his actuations. Respondent is contrite and remorseful. He has humbly acknowledged his transgression and offered his most sincere apology. This Court is not only a court of law and of justice, but one with compassion;1 not a Court of vengeance but of justice.2 We give prima facie credence to his vow "to be more circumspect and careful in the discharge of his professional functions and duties" and not to "repeat the same mistake again in the future". Respondent is, however, sternly reminded that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of legal profession are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.3 More importantly, while lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.4 WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order suspending Atty. Arnold V. Guerrero is LIFTED. This order is immediately executory. He is STERNLY WARNED that any act of a similar nature shall be dealt with even more severely. SO ORDERED.

    ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN Chief Justice REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice Footnotes LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Asscociate Justice ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Asscociate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Asscociate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Asscociate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Asscociate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Asscociate Justice

    Minute Resolution in Amane v. Atty. Susan Mendoza-Arce, A.M. No. P-94-1080, November 27, 2001, citing Torralba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124526, October 2, 1996.
    1 2

    Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 132. Id. at 135.

    Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123698, August 5, 19
    4

    You might also like