NOTE: Use is exclusively for non-profit, educational or research purposes only. -Case Digest of the case of Velez v Atty de VeraFull description
paleFull description
ethics digestFull description
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
SPECPRO
[ADMIN] [Uy v. Palomar]
Full description
paleFull description
case digest
case summary-legal ethics
Full description
Atty Palad VS Lolit SolisFull description
Full description
.Full description
CASE DIGEST
Full description
Virtucio v Alegarbes Digest
Villarico v Sarmiento Digest
DIGESTFull description
REBECCA MARIE UY YUPANGCO-NAKPIL,
Complainant, - versus ATTY. ROBERTO L. UY,
Respondent. A.C. No. 9115 SEP 17, 2014 Fac!"
Rebecca is the natural niece and adopted daughter of the late Dra. Pacita U. !he "as ad#udged as the sole and e$clusive legal heir of Pacita b virtue of an %rder& dated August '(, '))) issued b the Regional *rial Court of +anila, ranch . Pacita "as a stoc/holder in several corporations primaril engaged in ac0uiring, developing, and leasing real properties 1one of these companies is U Realt Compan, 2nc 3URC245. Rebecca, through her attorne-in fact, ella, averred that respondent, continuousl failed and refused to compl "ith the court order declaring her as the successor-in-interest successor-in-interest to all of Pacita6s properties, properties, as "ell as her re0uests for the accounting and deliver of the dividends and other proceeds or benefits ben efits coming from Pacita6s stoc/holdings in the corporations. !he added that respondent mortgaged a commercial despite an e$isting *rust *rust Agreement Agreement "herein respondent, in his capacit as President of URC2, alread recogni7ed her to be the true and beneficial o"ner of the same. I!!#$"
8hether or not respondent should be held h eld administrativel liable for violating Rule '.(', Canon ' of the Code of Professional Responsibilit %$&'"
Respondent Att. Att. Roberto 9. U is found GUILTY of violating Rule '.(', Canon ' of the Code of Professional Responsibilit. Responsibilit. Ra() *$c('$+'("
*he Court finds that respondent committed some form of misconduct b , as admitted, mortgaging the sub#ect propert, not"ithstanding the apparent dispute over the same. Regardless of the merits of his o"n claim, respondent should hav e e$hibited prudent restraint becoming of a legal e$emplar. :e should not have e$posed himself even to the slightest ris/ of committing a propert violation nor an action "hich "ould endanger the ar;s reputation.
