Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VERONICA S. SANTIAGO v. ATTY. AMADO R. FOJAS

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 6733 2012-10-10	HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ v. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA CARPIO, J.
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion.[14] As held in Santiago v. Fojas:[15]
	AC. No. 5704 2009-05-08	WILLEM KUPERS v. ATTY. JOHNSON B. ANOSAS TINGA, J.
We reject the Board's recommendation. We stress that much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law because they have a duty not only to their clients, but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public.[13] The lawyer's diligence and dedication to his work and profession ideally should not only promote the interests of his clients. A lawyer has the duty to attain the ends of justice by maintaining respect for the legal profession.[14]
	AC. No. 7421 2007-10-10	ELISA V. VENTEREZ v. ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.[12] Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.[13] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel affects the client.[14] This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[15]
	AC. No. 7421 2007-10-10	ELISA V. VENTEREZ v. ATTY. RODRIGO R. COSME CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed on an errant lawyer involves the exercise of sound judicial discretion based on the facts of the case.[27] In cases of similar nature, the penalty imposed by the Court consisted of reprimand,[28] fine of five hundred pesos with warning,[29] suspension of three months,[30] six months[31] and even disbarment[32] in an aggravated case.
	AC. NO. 1666 2007-04-13	LUISITO BALATBAT v. ATTY. EDGARDO ARIAS Y SANCHEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
As the Investigating Commissioner noted, it was respondent's duty, upon being apprised of the adverse decision, to exhaust all available remedies at the time to prevent its attaining finality and, more importantly, to forestall the inevitable execution that would follow considering that at that time, the winning party had not yet filed the motion for execution.[25] Our pronouncement in Santiago v. Fojas[26] is instructive on this point:x x x Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with its correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.
	AC. NO. 5655 2006-01-23	VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
[6] Santiago v. Fojas, A.C. No. 4103, September 7, 1995, 248 SCRA 68.
	AC. No. 4334 2004-07-07	SUSAN CUIZON v. ATTY. RODOLFO MACALINO PER CURIAM
It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. However, once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve his client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter's cause with whole-hearted fidelity.[12] Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.[13]
	AC. No. 5817 2004-05-26	EMMA V. DE JUAN v. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III QUISUMBING, J.
No lawyer is obliged to advocate for every person who may wish to become his client, but once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.[11] Further, among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his client and withdraw his services without reasonable cause and only upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.[12] Any dereliction of duty by a counsel, affects the client.[13] This means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[14]
	AC. No. 3967 2003-09-03	ARTEMIO ENDAYA v. ATTY. WILFREDO OCA TINGA, J.
It should be remembered that the moment a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his client's cause make him unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter.[41] Also, we held in Santiago v. Fojas,[42] "every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill, and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts if for a fee or for free." In other words, whatever the lawyer's reason is for accepting a case, he is duty bound to do his utmost in prosecuting or defending it.