Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARITESS GARCIA v. ATTY. ILUMINADO M. MANUEL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 8253 2011-03-15	ERLINDA R. TAROG v. ATTY. ROMULO L. RICAFORT PER CURIAM
Definitely, Atty. Ricafort had a highly fiduciary and confidential relation with the Tarogs. As such, he was burdened with the legal duty to promptly account for all the funds received from or held by him for them.[22]
	ADM CASE NO. 6589 2005-12-19	EPIFANIA Q. BANTOLO v. ATTY. EGMEDIO B. CASTILLON TINGA, J.
Nevertheless, the supreme penalty of disbarment is not proper in the instant case. The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While the Court will not hesitate to remove an erring lawyer from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers when the evidence calls for it, it will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.[19] In the case of respondent, the Court finds that a month's suspension from the practice of law will provide him with enough time to purge himself of his misconduct and will give him the opportunity to retrace his steps back to the virtuous path of the legal profession.
	AC. NO. 5655 2005-04-22	VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Garcia vs. Manuel,[8] we suspended respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered him to render an accounting of all monies he received from the complainant. We found him guilty of gross misconduct.
	AC. NO. 5835 2005-04-15	CARLOS B. REYES v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Garcia vs. Manuel,[8] we suspended respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered him to render an accounting of all monies he received from the complainant. We found him guilty of gross misconduct.
	AC. No. 6295 2004-04-14	JOSEFINA B. FAJARDO v. ATTY. DANILO DELA TORRE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It appears that complainant learned about the dismissal of her petition only through the copy of the appellate court's resolution appended to an omnibus motion for new trial and reconsideration[8] in another case, i.e., Civil Case No. 588 for Recovery of Ownership and Possession. In Garcia v. Manuel,[9] it was held:The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to mode and manner in which his interests are being defended. It is only thus that the trust and faith in the counsel may remain unimpaired. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
	AC. No. 6196 2004-03-17	ROSARIO H. MEJARES v. ATTY. DANIEL T. ROMANA CARPIO, J.
showing that he spent the money for the purpose intended.[10] Rule 16.01 of the Code provides: A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.
	Adm. Case No. 5162 2003-03-20	EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA BELLOSILLO, J.
This Court in Garcia v. Manuel suspended the respondent lawyer from the practice of law for six (6) months and ordered him to render an accounting of all monies he received from the complainant.[19] The counselor-at-law was found guilty of gross misconduct, especially for ineffectively handling the case of his client and failing to return the money given by that same client.