Case Digest: Constancia I. Valencia, Complainant, v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, Respondent | A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391, A.C. No. 1543, 30 June 2008
Constancia I. Valencia, Complainant, v. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, Respondent
A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391, A.C. No. 1543, 30 June 2008
Facts:
This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the respondent who was disbarred on 26 April 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent filed several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the bar. His motions and appeals were accompanied by endorsements of his good moral character by various organizations such as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law.
Held:
Records show that the long period of respondent’s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary proceedings is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided by their doctrine and considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contribution and his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Supreme Court find that it is now time to lift respondent’s disbarment.
A.C. No. 1302, A.C. No. 1391, A.C. No. 1543, 30 June 2008
Facts:
This is an appeal for reinstatement to the bar of the respondent who was disbarred on 26 April 1991 for falsifying a deed of sale and introduction the same as evidence for his client. From 1993 to 2002, the respondent filed several motions and appeals for reinstatement to the bar. His motions and appeals were accompanied by endorsements of his good moral character by various organizations such as IBP-Pangasinan Chapter; Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of Lingayen and Urdaneta, Pangasinan; Provincial Prosecutors’ Association of Pangasinan; Provincial Board of Pangasinan; Rotary Club of Urdaneta; and past National President of the IBP.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent should be readmitted to the practice of law.
Held:
Records show that the long period of respondent’s disbarment gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct, to show his remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live up once again of conduct demanded of every member of the bar. It is well-settled that the objective of disciplinary proceedings is restorative justice, not retribution. Guided by their doctrine and considering the evidence submitted by respondent satisfactorily showing his contribution and his being again worthy of membership in the legal profession, the Supreme Court find that it is now time to lift respondent’s disbarment.
Aceomiconfri Terrance Shaw https://wakelet.com/wake/H36U5WAkMmyxxEgfJUEjd
ReplyDeleterohavpingper
tempmeKscid_po Paul Golonka CCleaner pro
ReplyDeleteSound Forge
There
dfinedunpo