Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GORETTI ONG v. ATTY. JOEL M. GRIJALDO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 10573 2015-01-13	FERNANDO W. CHU v. ATTY. JOSE C. GUICO PER CURIAM
Accordingly, the recommendation of the IBP Board of Governors to suspend him from the practice of law for three (3) years would be too soft a penalty. Instead, he should be disbarred,[30] for he exhibited his unworthiness of retaining his membership in the legal profession. As the Court has reminded in Samonte v. Abellana:[31]
	AC. No. 7771 2011-04-06	PATRICIO GONE v. ATTY. MACARIO GA PEREZ, J.
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the Judiciary and his fellow lawyers.[18] His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey Court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with Court directives being themselves officers of the Court.[19]
	AC. No. 3731 2007-09-07	MANUEL S. SEBASTIAN v. ATTY. EMILY A. BAJAR CARPIO, J.
In the 7 October 1992 Court Resolution, respondent was required to comment on complainant's manifestation. She instead submitted a manifestation on 3 February 1993 or almost four months thereafter. In her manifestation, respondent alleged that she had substantially complied with the Court's orders. However, the Court in its 1 March 1993 Resolution stated that nothing set out in respondent's manifestation excused her failure to obey the Court's Resolutions. These acts constitute willful disobedience of the lawful orders of this Court, which under Section 27, Rule 138[58] of the Rules of Court is in itself a sufficient cause for suspension or disbarment. Respondent's cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution.[59] Respondent's conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Court's Resolution is "not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively."[60] Respondent's obstinate refusal to comply with the Court's orders "not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court's lawful orders which is only too deserving of reproof."[61]
	Adm. Case No. 4711 2004-11-25	ROMEO H. SIBULO v. FELICISIMO ILAGAN TINGA, J,
Respondent's unjustified disregard of the lawful orders of this Court and the IBP is not only irresponsible, but also constitutes utter disrespect for the judiciary and his fellow lawyers.[15] His conduct is unbecoming of a lawyer, for lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court.[16]
	AC. No. 5454 2004-11-23	CARMELINA Y. RANGWANI v. ATTY. RAMON S. DIÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court, in several cases,[24] has time and again ruled that the fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is what places the law profession in a unique position of trust and confidence, and distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the people not only in the individual lawyer but also in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To this end, all members of the bar are strictly required to at all times maintain the highest degree of public confidence in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of their profession.
	AC. No. 6238 2004-11-04	LINDA VILLARIASA-RIESENBECK v. ATTY. JAYNES C. ABARRIENTOS QUISUMBING, J.
Needless to emphasize, a lawyer must not keep a client in the dark as to the status of and developments in the client's case. The lawyer is obliged to respond within a reasonable time to a client's request for information.[35] A client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which that client's interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted.[36] A lawyer who repeatedly fails to answer the inquiries or communications of a client violates the rules of professional courtesy and neglects the client's interests.[37]
	AC. No. 5131 2004-09-22	JOSE E. ORIA v. ATTY. ANTONIO K. TUPAZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Respondent is required by his oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity to the courts as well as to his clients. The lawyer's oath is a source of obligations and violation thereof is a ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action.[5] Any departure from the path which a lawyer must follow as demanded by the virtues of his profession shall not be tolerated by this Court as the disciplining authority.[6]