Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. MANUEL G. SAN JOSE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 8158 2010-02-24	ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON v. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD BRION, J.
All these rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyer's duty to his client once an engagement for legal services is accepted. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence.[18] The lawyer bears the duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his or her client.[19] Accordingly, competence, not only in the knowledge of law, but also in the management of the cases by giving these cases appropriate attention and due preparation, is expected from a lawyer.[20]
	AC. No. 7433 2009-12-23	CESAR TALENTO v. ATTY. AGUSTIN F. PANEDA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As held in the case of Vda. De Enriquez v. San Jose:[19]
	AC. No. 7657 2008-02-12	VIVIAN VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CORNELIUS M. GONZALES CARPIO, J.
The TCT and other documents are the properties of complainant. Since respondent did not render any legal service to complainant, he should have returned complainant's properties to her. However, he refuses without any explanation to return them. Respondent has kept the TCT and other documents in his possession since 2000. He refuses to return them despite receiving a written demand and being confronted by complainant's daughter. In Vda. De Enriquez v. San Jose,[20] the Court held that failure to return the documents to the client is reprehensible: "this Court finds reprehensible respondent's failure to heed the request of his client for the return of the case documents. That respondent gave no reasonable explanation for that failure makes his neglect patent."