a Cie ge igeeemaat ee eo Aom.- CASE No. 574}, Octber 25,2004 _ FERDINAND xt CRUE Consplaanaat / us._tITY. STANLEY CABRERA, Respondent ¥ pn Om DR ininihehte: aint , Fer Ainle dt dere Atty. Stanley Cabrera wit misconduct iw violation of The Code of Professic aes lainant alleges yhad be * a —— chdeut who institwhd several actions against bls neighbors ; he Gppeared and nh hes behalf 1A Ree ne Cases sepa et hs councel of hac neighbor ; _ luring a hearing in one case, the lowing ochange anepired : Ss = os Nt XxX SO, may we knows Your Hmor, if he & a lawyer or not ? ad The Court having bee jnbubited fy foe “responded ao] penis the Case replied : 2 ‘ 5 Yu are’ otking fir my inhibin aud wast me fo rule on ba cppesanes es = Thereafler the respondent s ie “ peoause Yur Honor he (pertaining P the eomp- Jatrant) is ratrepresentiog hawcel to be a (awye this the compladnauct varbed : “Yr Honor, Tm not ex voor! __Respon dev fads ime eusul fed with anger in a raising wiee sad: e “Appear Ka ng appear, pumaso. kA muna ; yoxxe = Respondent s impubertons were uncalled for awd toe,him before the public , inasmuch as respondent Knew That omg lant tc nef a lap, bag cS red fer amd in Wis behalf aso party litigant ee baht A responded f iapuctoddions of Compladincautt misrepreserctation aa lamyur was potendty with malice t Atseredit his hoior wih the Nylon threaten bin nef + Pe Ene ta Cases = ee thet complainant not a layer wos because — respoodeat WAS handlig 2 Tn lis Comment, jhe “reason he Sidamwed. ie Cai the presiding sndge Het Hed not” ke Yat comp = [nina 18> te ie a lawyer ome the Cmphinait did _ nok tel ivf the, juage fat he & not A lawyer ; ne cited a precedent ewes “Tt it a be mare ‘exreum speet ia he pecfromance. of bes duchies ac am officer of the court z