Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO P. MENESES v. ATTY. RODOLFO P. MACALINO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 8253 2011-03-15	ERLINDA R. TAROG v. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT PER CURIAM
Bearing in mind his administrative record, and considering that the penalty for violation of Canon 16 ranges from suspension for six months,[40] to suspension for one year,[41] to suspension for two years,[42] depending on the amount involved and the severity of the lawyer's misconduct, we rule that disbarment is the commensurate punishment for Atty. Ricafort, who has shown no reformation in his handling of trust funds for his clients.
	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. 7021 2007-02-21	MELVIN D. SMALL v. ATTY. JERRY BANARES CARPIO, J.
In Meneses v. Macalino,[14] the Court ruled that: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 the intended purpose. Consequently, if the lawyer does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to the client.[15] Respondent specifically received P80,000 for his legal services and the filing fees for the cases against Amar. Since respondent failed to render any legal service to complainant and he failed to file a case against Amar, respondent should have promptly accounted for and returned the money to complainant. But even after demand, respondent did not return the money. Respondent's failure to return the money to complainant upon demand is a violation of the trust reposed on him and is indicative of his lack of integrity.[16]
	AC. NO. 7123 2006-11-20	MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, lawyers guilty of violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 of the Code are suspended from the practice of law for six months to one year.[27] Considering respondent Rivera's lack of prior administrative record, suspension from the practice of law for one year and not disbarment, as prayed for by complainant, serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession.