This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-02-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.[11] A lawyer's devotion to his client's cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter's cause to succeed.[12] In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondent's acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated. We are not unmindful of his dedication and conviction in defending the less fortunate. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. We stress what we have stated in our decision that, in support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and justice.[13] This is the criterion that must be borne in mind in every exertion a lawyer gives to his case.[14] Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes.[15] | |||||