This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-11-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Failure of a lawyer to communicate to his client important matters of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his requests for information is tantamount to unjustifiable denial of his right to be fully informed of the developments in and the status of the case.[10] In failing to inform his client of the status of the cases, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment. The relationship of a lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed as to the mode and manner in which his interests are being defended. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.[11] | |||||
|
2005-02-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case.[5] A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general. | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| lawyer is defending the client's interests.[16] The records do not show when respondent received a copy of the 4 December 2000 CA Decision dismissing his clients' petition. What is certain is that complainant and Tolin came to know of the ruling only on 28 December 2000, when they visited respondent's house. There, | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| could be taken to protect their interest. Had not two of his clients persisted in following-up their case, the Union members would not have known of the 4 December 2000 CA Decision. Without going into the merits of the Union members' petition in the Court of Appeals, it is clear that respondent's nonchalance contributed to the subsequent denial of his clients' motion for reconsideration, filed by another counsel. The Court of Appeals, in its 16 February 2001 Resolution, denied the motion for having been filed late. Furthermore, it would seem that respondent even failed to inform his clients that as early as 20 January 2000, this Court had referred their case to the Court of Appeals. By his lackadaisical handling of his clients' case, respondent all too clearly indicated his "failure to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of the professional employment."[18] Respondent claims that he was no longer the Union members' counsel of record when the Court of Appeals issued its 16 February 2001 Resolution. However, the records show that respondent filed in the Court of Appeals his Notice of Withdrawal as the Union's counsel only on 23 | |||||