Scribd
Upload
12 views1 page

Module 5-Case Digests 26

In the case of Yoshimura v. Panagsagan, Atty. Bernie Panagsagan was accused of grave misconduct for failing to provide legal services despite receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that his persistent silence and failure to respond to the complaint constituted an implied admission of guilt. Consequently, Atty. Panagsagan was found guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred.

Uploaded by

danielleoracion
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views1 page

Module 5-Case Digests 26

In the case of Yoshimura v. Panagsagan, Atty. Bernie Panagsagan was accused of grave misconduct for failing to provide legal services despite receiving payment. The Supreme Court ruled that his persistent silence and failure to respond to the complaint constituted an implied admission of guilt. Consequently, Atty. Panagsagan was found guilty of gross misconduct and disbarred.

Uploaded by

danielleoracion
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

CASE NO.

25

(ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS: ADMISSION BY SILENCE)


YOSHIMURA V. PANAGSAGAN, A.C. NO. 10962, [SEPTEMBER 11, 2018]

FACTS

Akira Yoshimura filed a disciplinary complaint for grave misconduct against Atty. Bernie Panagsagan.
Yoshimura alleged that he paid the respondent various sums totaling P404,000 for legal services, including
bus registration and the filing of an estafa case, but the lawyer failed to perform the tasks or return the
money. Despite receiving multiple notices from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to file an Answer
and attend hearings, Atty. Panagsagan remained silent and failed to appear at any stage of the proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether or not a respondent lawyer's persistent failure to answer a complaint or participate in


administrative proceedings despite notice constitutes an implied admission of the charges under the
doctrine of admission by silence.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found Atty. Panagsagan guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his disbarment.
The Court reasoned that the natural instinct of man impels him to resist unfounded claims and defend
himself against false accusations. Remaining reticent in such circumstances is contrary to human nature;
therefore, silence is construed as an implied admission of the truth. Applying the maxim qui tacet consentire
videtur (silence gives consent), the Court deduced that the respondent's refusal to cooperate or answer
the complaint served as an implicit admission of the charges leveled against him

You might also like