Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Robinsons Land Corp.
Sta Lucia Realty

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:

 
Breaking News / Nation Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > News > Breaking News > Nation

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send as an e-mail     Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  





imns



SC junks disbarment complaints vs SolGen, 2 others

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 16:16:00 07/03/2008

Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice), Laws

MANILA, Philippines -- The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a disbarment complaint against Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera and two other lawyers.

In its eight page resolution, the high court en banc, through Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, said the complaint against Devanadera and lawyers Rolando Faller and Santiago Varela lacked basis.

The high court said it is the duty of the Court to discipline members of the Bar as well as protect those who have been "frivolously or maliciously charged."

"The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven," the high court said.

The high court added that the complainants, known only as "Concerned Citizens," did not identify themselves or even provide a mailing address.

The "Concerned Citizens" sent a letter of complaint for disbarment to Chief Justice Reynato Puno dated August 26 last year against the three.

They alleged that the three respondents were involved in electioneering during the May 14, 2007 elections, in violation of the Omnibus Election Code.

But Devanadera said she holds Cabinet rank and is not covered by the prohibition against campaigning.

The three added that they had not even received a copy of the letter-complaint and would not have known about it if the Supreme Court had not attached a copy to its order.

They also questioned the identity of the complainants.

"They did not proffer any justification for not coming out in the open other than the self-serving reason of self preservation, which is contrary to their claim that they are not afraid to rock the boat," Devanadera said.

The high court agreed, saying "a reading of the letter-complaint shows that the allegations are vague and the attachments are mere photocopies."



Copyright 2009 INQUIRER.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Share


OTHER STORIES:



  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2009 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Megaworld
Filinvest
Property Guide
Xoom
Inquirer VDO