Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GODOFREDO C. PINEDA v. ATTY. TEDDY C. MACAPAGAL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194962 2016-01-27	CAGAYAN ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. MERIDIEN VISTA GAMING CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
It must be stressed that a lawyer-client relationship is highly fiduciary in nature.[44] The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client[45] and to serve them with competence and diligence.[46] It is the duty of every lawyer to give adequate attention and time to every case entrusted to him[47] and to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense thereof and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case.[48]
	AC. No. 7766 2014-08-05	JOSE ALLAN TAN v. PEDRO S. DIAMANTE PER CURIAM
In the case at bar, records reveal that as of August 14, 2007, respondent already knew of the dismissal of complainant's partition case before the RTC. Despite this fact, he never bothered to inform complainant of such dismissal as the latter only knew of the same on August 24, 2007 when he visited the former's office. To add insult to injury, respondent was inexcusably negligent in filing complainant's appeal only on September 12, 2007, or way beyond the reglementary period therefor, thus resulting in its outright dismissal. Clearly, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional employment.[24]
	AC. No. 7813 2009-04-15	CARLITO P. CARANDANG v. ATTY. GILBERT S. OBMINA CARPIO, J.
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of the IBP to suspend Atty. Gilbert S. Obmina from the practice of law for one year. In the cases of Credito v. Sabio[8] and Pineda v. Macapagal,[9] we imposed the same penalty upon attorneys who failed to update their clients on the status of their cases. Considering Atty. Obmina's advanced age, such penalty serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and legal profession.
	AC. NO. 4676 2006-05-04	SPS. ANTONIO AND NORMA SORIANO v. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In failing to inform his clients of the status of their cases, respondent failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such manners of professional employment.[29]