Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIX E. EDQUIBAL v. ATTY. ROBERTO FERRER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 10138 2015-06-16	ROBERTO P. NONATO v. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M. FUDOLIN PER CURIAM
Because a lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be left groping in the dark; to allow this situation is to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the retained lawyer and in the legal profession in general.[13]
	AC. No. 7815 2009-07-23	DOLORES C. BELLEZA v. ATTY. ALAN S. MACASA PER CURIAM
A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge, skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him, constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly, he owes full devotion to the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights and the exertion of his utmost learning, skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law legally applied.[16]
	AC. No. 8252 2009-07-21	NATIVIDAD UY v. ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN NACHURA, J.
It bears stressing that the lawyer-client relationship is one of trust and confidence. Thus, there is a need for the client to be adequately and fully informed about the developments in his case. A client should never be left groping in the dark, for to do so would be to destroy the trust, faith, and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and in the legal profession in general.[20] Respondent's act demonstrates utter disregard of Rule 18.04, Canon 18, Code of Professional Resposibility, which states: Rule 18.04-A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
	AC. NO. 1666 2007-04-13	LUISITO BALATBAT v. ATTY. EDGARDO ARIAS Y SANCHEZ CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the negligent failure of respondent to act accordingly under the circumstances clearly negates not only his claim that he "appeared in court always mindful of his duties,"[32] but also his vow to serve his client with competence and diligence[33] and not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[34] Respondent's actuations likewise violate Rule 18.04, which mandates that a lawyer keep the client informed of the status of the case and respond within a reasonable time to a client's request for information. A client must never be left in the dark for to do so would destroy the trust, faith and confidence reposed in the lawyer so retained in particular and the legal profession in general.[35]
	AC. NO. 7062 2006-09-26	RENERIO SAMBAJON CARPIO MORALES, J.
The practice of law does not require extraordinary diligence (exactissima diligentia) or that "extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their rights. All that is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia) or that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias. x x x[21] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) And this Court notes the attempt of respondent to influence the answers of his client Manuel Rodil when the latter testified before Commissioner Manuel Hababag:COMM. HABABAG: May pinirmahan dito na Quitclaim Receipt and Release. Ito ho ba sinong may gawa nitong Receipt Waiver and Quitclaim? MR. RODIL: Sila po. COMM. HABABAG: Ibig mong sabihin ibinigay sa yo to ng complainant o sinong nag-abot sa iyo nitong Receipt Waiver and Quitclaim? MR. RODIL: Si Atty. Suing po. ATTY. SUING: In fact, ang tanong sa iyo kung ibinigay daw sa iyo yong mga dokumentong ito or what? COMM. HABABAG: Okay, uulitin ko ha, tagalog na ang tanong ko sa iyo ha hindi na English. Ito bang Release Waiver and Quitclaim sino ang may gawa nito, sino ang nagmakinilya nito? MR. RODIL: Kami yata ang gumawa niyan. COMM. HABABAG: Pag sinabi mong kami yata ang may gawa sino sa inyong mga officer, tauhan o abogado ang gumawa nito? MR. RODIL: Matagal na ho yan eh. x x x x
	AC. NO. 6155 2006-03-14	MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO v. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL TINGA, J.
The IBP Board of Governors recommended the suspension of respondent for six (6) months, the most severe penalty recommended by Commissioner Villadolid, but did not explain why such penalty was justified. In a fairly recent case where the lawyer failed to file an appeal brief which resulted to the dismissal of the appeal of his client in the Court of Appeals, the Court imposed upon the erring lawyer the penalty of three (3) months' suspension.[25] The Court finds it fit to impose the same in the case at bar.