7/27/2019 LUZON MAHOGANY.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/luzon-mahoganydoc 1/2

LUZON MAHOGANY VS. CASTRO, 69 SCRA 384

FACTS:

Respondent Manuel Reyes was alleged for assisting a third party in a dishonest and

illegal scheme. Moreover, he failed to file a comment on a motion for

reconsideration due to caring for his sister who suffered nervous rea!down and his

parents who were e"periencing several ailments.

#SS$%:

&hether respondent's failure compliance to his oligations a su(ect for disarment.

R$)#*+:

Respondent must e reminded that as an officer of the Court, he is li!ewise called

upon to discharge certain responsiilities.

 The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration for complainant. Respondent

Manuel Reyes Castro is reprimanded, his e"planation of the failure to sumit the

comment reuired of him eing only partially satisfactory.

P. VS, MEDINA, 62 SCRA 253

FACTS: Respondent Cesar +. Fa(ardo, who for a period close to four months paid no

attention to a resolution of the Court, and when reuired to pay a fine for such

omission did nothing aout it due to the mental and emotional state he was in.

#SS$%: &hether or not his failure to comply his oligation is su(ect to suspension.

R$)#*+: Respondent should e aware of his oligations as in lieu to memership in

the ar, especially so where a command is traceale to an order of the Court.

 The resolution of August -, /01 suspending respondent Cesar +. Fa(ardo from the

practice of the law is will e granted only if respondent Fa(ardo will pay the fine of

233.33.

GEESLIN VS. NAVARRO, 185 SCRA 230

FACTS: Respondent *avarro admitted that he has sold, and is still selling, properties

covered y Torrens titles in the names of 4RT#+AS 5 C4., Madrigal, and other

companies. 6e has oviously shown a complete and total disregard for asic norms

of honesty and decency. 6e also pre(udiced the interest of his clients ecause of his

gross neglect to appeal in a timely manner from the decision of the court. 6e even

influenced them into commencing a case that is intended to harass and coerce the

6onorale 2residing 7udge.

#SS$%: . &hether or not respondent *avarro sold properties titled in the names of

other persons without the consent of the latter8 and

7/27/2019 LUZON MAHOGANY.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/luzon-mahoganydoc 2/2

9. #f in the affirmative, whether or not such acts constitute sufficient grounds for

suspension or disarment.

R$)#*+:

Such acts of respondent are evidential of reach resistance to lawful orders of

constituted authority and illustrate his haitual despiciency for an attorneys duty to

society. Respondent has proven himself unworthy of the trust and confidence

reposed in him y law and y this Court, through his delierate re(ection of his oath

as an officer of the court.

 Thus, he is ;#S<ARR%; and his name is ordered STR#C=%* from the Roll of

Attorneys.