Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA T. BAYONLA v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.[23] The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.[24] Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client - as in this case - gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.[25]
	AC. No. 10662 2015-07-07	JUN B. LUNA v. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA LEONEN, J.
Although the Court renders this decision in an administrative proceeding primarily to exact the ethical responsibility on a member of the Philippine Bar, the Court's silence about the respondent lawyer's legal obligation to restitute the complainant will be both unfair and inequitable. No victim of gross ethical misconduct concerning the client's funds or property should be required to still litigate in another proceeding what the administrative proceeding has already established as the respondent's liability. That has been the reason why the Court has required restitution of the amount involved as a concomitant relief in the cited cases of Mortem v. Pagatpatan, supra, Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, supra, Small v. Banares, supra.[97] (Emphasis supplied)
	AC. No. 10438 2014-09-23	CF SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED v. NICOLAS C. TORRES PER CURIAM
It is fundamental that the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and ascribes to a lawyer a great degree of fidelity and good faith.[24] The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.[25] This is the standard laid down by Rules 16.01 and 16.03, Canon 16 of the CPR, which read: CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
	AC. No. 8000 2014-08-05	CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.[18] The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.[19] Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client, as in this case, gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.[20]
	AC. No. 5098 2012-04-11	JOSEFINA M. ANIÑON v. ATTY. CLEMENCIO SABITSANA BRION, J.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be informed of the charge against oneself and to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] These opportunities were all afforded to Atty. Sabitsana, as shown by the above circumstances.