Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 676 views

    Pimentel vs. Llorente Case Digest Pale

    Uploaded by

    rosemarie madarang
    Respondents Llorente and Salayon, who were members of the Pasig Board of Canvassers (BOC) in the 1995 elections, were found guilty of misconduct. A complaint was filed alleging they tampered with votes by adding or reducing numbers for particular candidates on statements of votes (SOVs). Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The court held that by certifying inaccurate SOVs as true and correct, respondents violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and their oath as lawyers, as public officers are held to high standards of integrity. Respondents were fined P1,000 and sternly warned.

    Copyright:

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

    Pimentel vs. Llorente Case Digest Pale

    Uploaded by

    rosemarie madarang
    676 views1 page
    Respondents Llorente and Salayon, who were members of the Pasig Board of Canvassers (BOC) in the 1995 elections, were found guilty of misconduct. A complaint was filed alleging they tampered with votes by adding or reducing numbers for particular candidates on statements of votes (SOVs). Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The court held that by certifying inaccurate SOVs as true and correct, respondents violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and their oath as lawyers, as public officers are held to high standards of integrity. Respondents were fined P1,000 and sternly warned.

    Original Description:

    PALE CASE DIGEST PIMENTEL VS. LLORENTE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondents Llorente and Salayon, who were members of the Pasig Board of Canvassers (BOC) in the 1995 elections, were found guilty of misconduct. A complaint was filed alleging they tampered with votes by adding or reducing numbers for particular candidates on statements of votes (SOVs). Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The court held that by certifying inaccurate SOVs as true and correct, respondents violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and their oath as lawyers, as public officers are held to high standards of integrity. Respondents were fined P1,000 and sternly warned.

    Copyright:

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

    Pimentel vs. Llorente Case Digest Pale

    Uploaded by

    rosemarie madarang
    Respondents Llorente and Salayon, who were members of the Pasig Board of Canvassers (BOC) in the 1995 elections, were found guilty of misconduct. A complaint was filed alleging they tampered with votes by adding or reducing numbers for particular candidates on statements of votes (SOVs). Respondents denied the allegations, claiming errors were due to honest mistakes. The court held that by certifying inaccurate SOVs as true and correct, respondents violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and their oath as lawyers, as public officers are held to high standards of integrity. Respondents were fined P1,000 and sternly warned.

    Copyright:

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

    PIMENTEL, JR. V.

    LLORENTE SALAYON
    ( FINE ---- P1,000.00/ STERNLY WARNED)
    RULE 1.01, LAWYERS OATH
    FACTS:
    Complaint for disbarment against respondents who were members of the Pasig BOC in the
    May 8, 1995 elections for gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the
    lawyers oath in connection with the discharge of their duties
    Salayon--- Chairman of the Board

    Llorente---- Vice-Chairman

    filed by complainant who was a SENATORIAL candidate


    alleged tampering the votes received by them either adding or reducing the number of
    votes of particular candidates in their SOVs.
    Denied allegations---- the preparation of the SOVs was made by the 12 canvassing
    committee which the Board had constituted to assist in the canvassing.
    ---- claimed that errors pointed out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake,
    oversight, and/or fatigue.
    ISSUE: W/N RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT
    HELD:
    YES. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the
    bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as government official. However, if the
    misconduct also constitutes a violation of the CPR or lawyers oath or is of such character as
    to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual
    may be disciplined as member of the bar for such misconduct.
    By certifying as true and correct the SOVs in question, respondents committed a breach of
    RULE 1.01 of the CODE.
    By express provision of CANON 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in government service.
    Likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood.
    As lawyers in government service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe this
    basic tenet of the profession because a public officer is a public trust.

    You might also like