Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.C. No. 2033 May 9, 1990 E. CONRAD and VIRGINIA BEWLEY GEESLIN, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent. A.C. No. 2148 May 9, 1990 ATTY. FRANCISCO ORTIGAS, JR. and ATTY. EULOGIO R. RODRIGUEZ, complainants, vs. ATTY. FELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent. Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Valmonte, Peña & Marcos for complainants in AC No. 2033. Felipe C. Navarro for and in his own behalf. PER CURIAM: We write this finale to the dispiriting charges filed by complainants Francisco Ortigas, Jr. and Eulogio R. Rodriguez in Administrative Case No. 2148 1 and by spouses E. Conrad and Virginia Bewley Geeslin in Administrative Case No. 2033 2 seeking the disbarment of respondent Atty. Felipe C. Navarro for malpractice and gross misconduct. In our resolution dated May 5, 1980, issued consequent to the Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Solicitor General submitted to this Court on April 21, 1980, we ordered the suspension of respondent Navarro from the practice of law during the pendency of these cases. 3 The investigative phase was conducted by said office pursuant to our resolutions of February 14, 1975 and September 13, 1976 in G.R. Nos. L- 39386 and L-39620-29, entitled "Florentina Nuguid Vda. de Haberer vs. Court of Appeals, et al." With commendable thoroughness and attention to detail, two reports were submitted which, in order to vividly portray the
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC A.C. No.
2033 May 9, 1990E. CONRAD and VIRGINIA BEWLE GEESLIN, complainants,
vs.ATT. !ELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent.A.C. No. 21"# May 9, 1990ATT.
!RANCISCO ORTIGAS, $R. and ATT. EULOGIO R. RODRIGUE%, complainants,
vs.ATT. !ELIPE C. NAVARRO, respondent.Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta,
Valmonte, Pea & Marcos for complainants in AC No. 2033.Felipe
C. Naarro for an! in his o"n #ehalf. PER CURIAM&We write this
finale to the dispiritin chares filed b! complainants "rancisco
#rtias, $r. and EuloioR. Rodriue% in Administrative Case No.
&'() 1 and b! spouses E. Conrad and *irinia Bewle! +eeslinin
Administrative Case No. &,-- 2 see.in the disbarment of
respondent Att!. "elipe C. Navarro for malpractice and ross
misconduct./n our resolution dated Ma! 0, '1),, issued conse2uent
to the Report and Recommendation of the #ffice of the 3olicitor
+eneral submitted to this Court on April &', '1),, we ordered
the suspension of respondent Navarro from the practice of law durin
the pendenc! of these cases. 34he investiative phase was conducted
b! said office pursuant to our resolutions of "ebruar! '(, '150 and
3eptember '-, '156 in +.R. Nos.78 -1-)6 and 78-16&,8&1,
entitled 9"lorentina Nuuid *da. de :aberer vs. Court of Appeals, et
al.9 With commendable thorouhness and attention to detail, two
reports were submitted which, in order to vividl! portra! the scope
and manitude of respondent;s operations and how he was able to
perpetrate the anomalous transactions complained of, we 2uote e
case alleedl! decided on Ma! &6, '15' b! the 3upreme Court or
an! other court and therefore A77 /43 4/47E3 AER/*EA "R#M AECREE
N#. '(&0 ARE N#4 /N AN> WA> A""EC4EA B> 3A/A
AEC/3/#N.4he public is hereb! re2uested to be war! of an! person
sellin landsandGor rihts to lands belonin to and in the name of
#rtias E Compan!, 7imited Partnership.4he public is also warned to
be war! of M/37EAA/N+ adverstisements andGor persons basin their
rihts to lands of #rtiasE Compan!, 7imited Partnership on such
9decision9 of Ma! &6, '15' which is claimed to be 9final and e,
7/M/4EA PAR4NER3:/P?E
![Conrad v Dohrmann - ejustice.moj.naejustice.moj.na/High Court/Judgments/Civil/Conrad v Dohrmann (I... · Web view[113]At p. 39, the learned author proceeds and states that, ‘Even](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5bfca1cf09d3f2740f8b9c19/conrad-v-dohrmann-courtjudgmentscivilconrad-v-dohrmann-i-web-view113at.jpg)
