Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REDENTOR S. JARDIN v. ATTY. DEOGRACIAS VILLAR

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	Adm. Case No. 5530 2013-01-28	SPS. ARCING AND CRESING BAUTISTA v. ATTY. ARTURO CEFRA BRION, J.
In Jardin v. Villar, Jr.,[13] the Court held: Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free. Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer's lethargy from the perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical.
	A C. NO. 7504 2007-11-23	VIRGINIA VILLAFLORES v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has emphatically ruled that the trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer's lethargy from the perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical.[15]
	AC. No. 5739 2007-09-12	PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE I v. ATTY. JUAN AYAR MONTEMAYOR PER CURIAM
In Redentor S. Jardin v. Atty. Deogracias Villar, Jr.,[7] the Court also held that:[T]he trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients requires in the attorney a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or free. Certainly, a member of the Bar who is worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical fashion. A lawyer's lethargy from the perspective of the Canons is both unprofessional and unethical.
	AC. No. 6238 2004-11-04	LINDA VILLARIASA-RIESENBECK v. ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS QUISUMBING, J.
Respondent should be reminded that once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause.[29] The lawyer must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the client's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion.[30] Otherwise stated, the lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of the client's rights, and the exertion of the lawyer's utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from the client, save by the rules of law legally applied.[31] This simply means that the client is entitled to the benefit of any remedy and defense that is authorized by law and may expect the lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.[32] Until the lawyer's withdrawal is properly done, the lawyer is expected to do his or her best for the interest of the client.
	AC. No. 4334 2004-07-07	SUSAN CUIZON v. ATTY. RODOLFO MACALINO PER CURIAM
The fact that the respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant of arrest issued by the Court exacerbates his offense. His repeated failure to comply with the Court's Resolutions requiring him to file his comment on the complaint should also be taken into account. By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.[16]