![(Part 4) En Banc cases penned by Justice Hernando; Partsch v. Vitorillo [04 Jan 2022]](https://lodpost.com/uploads/2023/03/1678016087-ruru1-1024x615.jpg)
(Part 4) En Banc cases penned by Justice Hernando; Partsch v. Vitorillo [04 Jan 2022]
One's admission to the Bar is by no means a license to gloss over the loopholes in legislation, to hijack the legal processes, or to manipulate the technical decisions of those unlearned in law. Among the sworn obligations of attorneys upon taking the Lawyer's Oath is to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land at all times, never to waver even if vices of luxury, convenience, and worldly excesses tempt them so.
Of course, accusations remain mere allegations if unsupported by the requisite quantum of proof. In disciplinary cases involving members of the Bar, substantial evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of administrative penalty.
Ads.
Simply scroll down to continue reading this article.
If you believe this Website/Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence. READ MORE
⚠️ WARNING.
Some hyperlinks may contain advertisements (ads.) with "adult content" as part of the promotion and monetization of the website. Please proceed with caution.
Ads.
Simply scroll down to continue reading this article.
 |
| 2023 Bar Exam Quiz Cards Reviewer for ₱150 - ₱500. |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
.jpeg) |
| ▶️ Watch here |
ads.
ang buhay mo? Este ang books 
mo?"
LAW BOOK FLAGS / FILING TABS
Shop here: https://go.shopple.co/spm01i
More @ https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Visit 
"Bar techniques"
: Abubot ni atorni
Continue reading..
Substantial evidence means "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." It is "more in keeping with the primodial purpose of and essential considerations attending this type of cases."
The prohibition against foreign ownership of Philippine private lands is too basic a rule for even non-attorneys to be unaware of. As a lawyer, Atty. Vitorilllo is presumed to know this. Despite being equipped with such knowledge, Atty. Vitorillo still marketed the subject property for sale to Partsch, a Swiss national. More telling of Atty. Vitorillo's ethical obliquity is his questionable instruction to Partsch to just proceed with the fencing of the subject property without any acceptable guarantee of Atty. Vitorillo's title thereto. Again, Atty. Vitorillo had not refuted this serious allegation. He is deemed to have acted in contravention of Canon 1, Rule 1.02 - CPR's proscription against counseling activities aimed at defiance of the law.
In light of recent jurisprudence most akin to the present case, the Court increases Atty. Vitorillo's suspension to three years.
The Court's reminder to the Bar in Nakpil v. Valdes bears reiteration:
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. Thus, a lawyer should determine his conduct by acting in a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Vitorillo is found GUILTY of deceitful conduct, gross misconduct, violation of Canons 1 and 7, Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. Respondent Atty. Reynaldo A. Vitorillo is SUSPENDED for three years.
Partsch v. Vitorillo [04 Jan 2022]
Read full the of the case here:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/jan2022/ac_10897_2022.html
READ MORE!
WEBSITE:
📎https://bit.ly/m/AttyEblogger
Visit 🔎 "Hernando Case Digest"
Shopple Store 🛒
📎 https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Visit 🔎 "Hernando Case Digest"
•Telegram
• Discord
You must be logged in to post a comment.