SYNTHESIZING CASES IS REALLY IMPORTANT INORDER TO HAVE A GREAT ARGUMENT OR EVEN A STRATEGY TO PERSUADE THE JUDGE BECAUSE GETTING

ONE OR MORE CASES RELATING TO EACH OTHER RESULTS TO GREAT REPRESENTATION OF CASES BY THE LAWYER AND DECIDING THE CASE BY THE JUDGE.

IN THE CASE OF ARCIGA V. MANIWANG, MAGDALENA T. ARCIGA ASKED FOR THE DISBARNMENT OF LAWYER SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG ON THE GROUND OF GROSSLY IMMORAL CONDUCT BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO FULFILL HIS PROMISE OF MARRIAGE TO HER. THEIR ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP RESULTED IN THE BIRTH OF A CHILD. IN THE CASE OF FIGUEROA V. BARRANCO,PATRICIA FIGUEROA PETITIONED THAT RESPONDENT SIMEON BARRANCO, JR. BE DENIED ADMISSION TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION BECAUSE THAT RESPONDENT AND SHE HAD BEEN SWEETHEARTS, THAT CHILD OUT OF WEDLOCK WAS BORN TO THEM AND THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT FULFILL HIS REPEATED PROMISES TO MARRY HER AFTER PASSES THE BAR. THE SC HELD IN THESE TWO CASES DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONVINCING OR CLEARLY PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE BECAUSE THESE FACTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE GROSS IMMORALITY WARRANTING THE PERMANENT EXCLUSION OF RESPONDENT FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND NOT TAKING THE OATH. IN THE CASE OF FIGUEROA V. BARRANCO,PATRICIA FIGUEROA, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT TO JUSTIFY SUSPENSION OR DISBARNMENT THE ACT COMPLAINED OF MUST NOT ONLY BE IMMORAL, BUT GROSSLY IMMORAL. IT IS ONE THAT IS SO CORRUPT AND FALSE AS TO CONSTITUTE ACT OR SO UNPRINCIPLED OR DISGRACEFUL AS TO BE REPREHENSIBLE TO A HIGH DEGREE. THE RULING IN ARCIGA V, MANIWANG QUITE RELEVANT BECAUSE MERE INTIMACY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BOTH OF WHOM POSSESS NO IMPEDIMENT TO MARRY, VOLUNTARILY CARRIED ON AND DEVOID OF ANY DECEIT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT, IS NEITHER SO CORRUPT NOR SO UNPRINCIPLED AS TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINAR SANCTION VS. HIM, EVEN IF AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELATIONSHIP A CHILD WAS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK.

PRACTICE OF LAW IS A PRIVILEGE BUT WITH CONDITIONS. ADHERENCE TO RIGID STANDARDS OF MENTAL FITNESS , MAINTENANCE OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF MORALITY AND OTHER CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THE ADMISSSION AND REMAINING MEMBER OF GOOD STANDING OF THE BAR AND FOR ENJOYING THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW.ANY BREACH OF THESE CONDITIONS MAKES HIM UNWORTHY OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE WHICH THE COURTS AND CLIENTS MUST REPOSE IN HIM OR UNFIT TO CONTINUE IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE . HIS MISCONDUCT JUSTIFIES DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST HIM OR WITHDRAWAL OF HIS PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW.HOWEVER, IT REQUIRES CONSIDERARATIONS OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS . TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ATTENDANT AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SHOULD NEITHER BE ARBITRARY AND DESPOTIC NOR MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL ANIMOSITY OR PRJUDICE. IT SHOULD BE EXERCISED ON THE PRESERVATIVE AND NOT ON THE VINDICTIVE PRINCIPLE, WITH GREAT CAUTION AND ONLY FOR THE MOST WEIGHTY REASONS AND ONLY IN CLEAR CASES OF MISCONDUCT. THE SUMPREME COURT DECIDES THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED OR ON RECORD, DISMISS THE CASE OR ADJUDGE THE LAWYER GUILTY, IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING DISCIPLINARY SANCTION WHICH MAY BE WARNING, REPRIMAND, CENSURE, FINE, SUSPENSION OR DISBARNMENT. IT MAY ALSO REQUIRE RESTITUTION OF THE CLIENTS MONEY AS PART OF THE PENALTY.

SINCE A LAWYER ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE HAS ALL THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR AT THE TIME HE TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE , TWO REQUISITES MUST CONCUR BEFORE HE MAY BE SUSPENDEDOR DISBARRED FOR MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BEFORE HIS ADMISSION. FIRST IS THAT THE ACT IMPUTED TO HIM MUST BE SO CORRUPT AND FALSE AS TO CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL ACT OR SO UNPRINCIPLED AS TO REPREHENSIBLE TO A HIGH DEGREE AND THE SECOND REQUISITE IS THAT THE ACT CHARGED MUST BE ESTABLISED BY A CLEAR PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. A LAWYER MAY BE SUSPENDED OR DISBARRED FOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE OR FOR GROSS IMMORALITY COMMITTED BEFORE ADMISSION , SUCH AS LIVING ADULTEROUS WITH A WOMAN OR CONTRACTING SECOND MARRIAGE WHILE HIS FIRST MARRIAGE REMAINS VALID. IN THE CASE AT BAR WHEREIN THE SC RULED THAT THE PROMISE TO MARRY AFTER PASSING THE BAR IS NOT SUFFICIENT THE ACT SHOULD NOT ONLY BE IMMORAL, BUT GROSSLY IMMORAL. IT IS ONE THAT IS SO CORRUPT AND FALSE AS TO CONSTITUTE ACT OR SO UNPRINCIPLED OR DISGRACEFUL AS TO BE REPREHENSIBLE TO A HIGH DEGREE. AS I EXAMINED AND ANALYZED THE SYNTHESIZE CASES AS MENTION IN ONE OF THE CASES THE LAWYERS ARE DISBARNED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR AND WITH MERIT THAT SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE STANDING AND CHARACTER OF THE LAWYER AN OFFICER. ONLY THOSE ACTS WHICH CAUSE LOSS OF MORAL CHARACTER SHOULD MERIT DISBARNMENT OR SUSPENSION,WHILE THOSE ACTS WHICH NEITHER AFFECT NOR ERODE THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THE LAWYER SHOULD ONLY JUSTIFY A LESSER SANCTION . THATS WHY I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SUMPREME COURT TO DISMISSED THE

CASE. ANY DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN HIS FAVOR. THE SUMPREME COURT MAY DIRECT THE LAWYER TO RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT THE CHILD WITH COMPLAINANT IN A CHARGE OF IMMORALITY. AND IN THE EVENT THE LAWYER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUCH CONDITION, IT MAY SUSPEND OR DISBAR HIM FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF ITS ORDER. ALSO,THE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE OF RESPONDENT LAWYER WITH THE COMPLAINING WOMAN WHO CHARGED HIM WITH HAVING FAILED TO MARRY HER AFTER SHE SURRENDERED HER VIRGINITY TO HIM JUSTIFIES DISMISSAL OF THE DISBARNMENT CASE AS MOOT AND ACADEMIC. WE CANNOT HELP VIEWING THE INSTANT COMPLAINT AS AN ACT OF REVENGE OF A WOMAN SCORNED, BITTER AND UNFORGIVING TO THE END. IT IS ALSO INTENDED TO MAKE RESPONDENT SUFFER SEVERELY AND IT SEEMS, PERPETUALLY, SACRIFICING THE PROFESSION HE WORKED VERY HARD TO BE ADMITTED INTO OR THE OR DEPRIVE WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO JUDGE INTELLIGENTLY AND SENSIBLE.