This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2004-11-04 |
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. | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It cannot be stressed enough how important it is for a lawyer as an officer of the court to observe honesty at all times, especially before the courts.[16] A lawyer must be a disciple of truth,[17] and Agravante has clearly failed | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A word regarding the imposable penalty. In the case of Perea v. Almadro,[23] the respondent therein was similarly punished for negligence in the discharge of his duty as well as misrepresentation committed before the court. In said case, the | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| respondent lawyer failed to file a demurrer to the evidence after asking for leave to file the same. He compounded this transgression by spinning concocting stories about the loss of the file of his draft, which somehow led him to believe that the pleading had already been filed. Finding him guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court suspended the respondent therein from the practice of law for one (1) year and imposed a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, with warning that any similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severely.[24] Evidently, this case seems to be on all fours with the case at bar, so we are thus constrained to increase the penalty recommended by the IBP. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Alexander M. Agravante is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year and is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). He is STERNLY WARNED that a | |||||