MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ
MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ
MAPALAD vs. ECHANEZ
ISSUE:
Should respondent be administratively disciplined based on the
allegations in the complaint and evidence on record?
HELD:
The Court held that the respondent violated Canon 1 - Rule 1.01,
Canon 10 - Rule 10.1, Canon 17, Canon 18 and his Lawyer’s Oath.
Respondent’s act of ignoring court orders despite notice exhibited
unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court. The
respondent has two previous cases and sanctioned twice by IBP for
engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission vis-à-vis
his act of using a false MCLE compliance number in his pleadings on
the present case. Respondent’s acts of misconduct are clearly
manifested; thus, the Court ordered his disbarment and his name was
ordered stricken from the Rolls of Attorneys.