Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. LOLITA AND ROMY GALEN v. ATTY. ANTONIO B. PAGUIRIGAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	Adm. Case No. 9058 2012-11-14	ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES v. ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE BERSAMIN, J.
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act of the attorney should be gross[21] and inexcusable[22] as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the client's interest.[23] Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading,[24] or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal,[25] especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file the pleading[26] and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance.[27] The Court has found the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy,[28] or belatedly files an appeal,[29] or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint,[30] or fails to attend scheduled court hearings.[31] Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.[32]
	GR No. 138495 2004-12-09	ANTONIO BORBON v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Galen vs. Paguirigan,[5] we held:"An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice."
	AC. No. 5817 2004-05-26	EMMA V. DE JUAN v. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III QUISUMBING, J.
A lawyer is expected to be familiar with these rudiments of law and procedure and anyone who acquires his service is entitled to not just competent service but also whole-hearted devotion to his client's cause. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of law the interest of his client. A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for disciplinary action.[15]
	Adm. Case No. 5162 2003-03-20	EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA BELLOSILLO, J.
In Rabanal v. Tugade[20] and Galen v. Paguirigan,[21] the respondent lawyers who failed to file a brief to the detriment of their respective clients were suspended by this Court for six (6) months on the first offense.
	AC. No. 5246 2003-03-20	EDGAR O. PEREA v. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the recent case of Sps. Galen et al. vs. Atty. Paguirigan[14] the Court is explicit in its pronouncement that:"An attorney is bound to protect his client's interest to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence. A failure to file brief for his client certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. The respondent has indeed committed a serious lapse in the duty owed by him to his client as well as to the Court not to delay litigation and to aid in the speedy administration of justice.
	AC. No. 1372 2002-06-27	SPS. LIRIO U. RABANAL AND CAYETANO D. RABANAL v. ATTY. FAUSTINO F. TUGADE MENDOZA, J.
In Galen v. Paguirigan,[27] the Court, taking into account that it was a first offense, suspended for a period of six (6) months a lawyer who failed to file a brief. Atty. Faustino Tugade showed lack of due care for his client's interest and willful neglect of his duties as an officer of the court, thus warranting the imposition of the same penalty on him.