Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7657 2008-02-12	VIVIAN VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CORNELIUS M. GONZALES CARPIO, J.
In Meneses v. Macalino,[13] the Court held that "if [a] lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client." In the instant case, respondent demanded P10,000 and received P8,000 as acceptance fee. Since he did not render any legal service, he should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant.[14] He did not.
	AC. NO. 7418 2007-10-09	ANDREA BALCE CELAJE v. ATTY. SANTIAGO C. SORIANO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As the Court has pronounced, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.[15]
	AC. No. 7418 2007-10-09	ANDREA BALCE CELAJE v. ATTY. SANTIAGO C. SORIANO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As the Court has pronounced, when a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for a particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.[15]