On July 11, 2023, the Court in its Resolution in A.M. No. 25-05-05-SC, Re: Request of the Public Attorney's Office to Delete Section 22, Canon III of the Proposed Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability , denied the said request of the Public Attorney's Office ( PAO ). The Court…
- G.R. Number: A.M. No. 23-07-26-
- Promulgated: 2024-02-27
- Ponente: SINGH, J.
Keywords
Rule 71 Section 3(d) Rules of Court, Rule 71 Section 7 Rules of Court, Sections 2, 14, 19 Canon II Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Sections 33(i), 34(j), 37, 40 Canon VI Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Fair Criticism Doctrine, Lawyer's sworn duty to maintain respectful attitude towards courts, Indirect Contempt, Administrative Discipline of Lawyers, Judicial Tyranny Accusation, Professional Misconduct, Grossly Undignified Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, Sub Judice Rule, Disbarment, Reprimand, Stern Warning, Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice, Atty. Erfe found guilty of indirect contempt, Atty. Erfe found guilty of grossly undignified conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Atty. Erfe found guilty of violation of sub judice rule, Atty. Erfe fined PHP 10,000.00