This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-06-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| However, as aptly concluded by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner enjoys the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution. Although restitution is akin to voluntary surrender,[26] as provided for in paragraph 7[27] of Article 13, in relation to paragraph 10[28] of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code, restitution should be treated as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused when the two circumstances are present in a case, which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender and plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.[29] Considering that restitution is also tantamount to an admission of guilt on the part of the accused, it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to have considered it as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-09-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In Heck v. Santos,[68] the Court held that "any interested person or the court motu proprio may initiate disciplinary proceedings." The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges.[69] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain, he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.[16] A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.[17] In Barnachea v. Quiocho,[18] the Court suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for one year for his failure to return client's funds which were given to him for the expenses for the transfer of title over real property and in payment for his legal services. The Court held:A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or property of his client that may come to his possession. He is a trustee to said funds and property. He is to keep the funds of his client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him. Money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose such as for the registration of a deed with the Register of Deeds and for expenses and fees for the transfer of title over real property under the name of his client if not utilized, must be returned immediately to his client upon demand therefor. The lawyer's failure to return the money of his client upon demand gave rise to a presumption that he has misappropriated said money in violation of the trust reposed on him. The conversion by a lawyer [of] funds entrusted to him by his client is a gross violation of professional ethics and a betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession.[19] (Emphasis supplied) Respondent must likewise be reminded that a lawyer should, at all times, comply with what the court lawfully requires.[20] It bears stressing that the judgment against him in Civil Case No. 7130 has long become final and executory. However, up to this date, he has failed to comply with the order to pay complainant the amount of P100,000.00 as well as interest and attorney's fees. His refusal to comply with the said order constitutes a willful disobedience to the court's lawful orders. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Rule 16.01 of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity, because a high degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is exacted.[14] In Pariñas v. Paguinto,[15] the Court had the occasion to state that "money entrusted to a lawyer for a specific purpose, such as for filing fee, but not used for failure to file the case must immediately be returned to the client on demand."[16] Indeed, a lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his or her client's money.[17] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Court motu proprio or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon the verified complaint of any person. The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges. The evidence submitted by complainant before the Commission on the Bar Discipline sufficed to sustain its resolution and recommended sanctions.[23] On the Appropriate Penalty to be Imposed | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject however, to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him. Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform his client of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his client's request for information. Respondent's failure to communicate with his client by deliberately disregarding its request for an audience or conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed of the developments in and the status of its case.[19] | |||||