This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-15 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The primary duty of lawyers is not to their clients but to the administration of justice. To that end, their clients' success is wholly subordinate. The conduct of a member of the bar ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.[22] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.[23] In spite of the foregoing, the Court deems the penalty of suspension for two (2) months as excessive and not commensurate to Atty. Mendoza's infraction. Disbarment and suspension of a lawyer, being the most severe forms of disciplinary sanction, should be imposed with great | |||||
|
2013-10-08 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Anent the first infraction, it bears emphasis that complainant's right over the properties of her deceased husband, David, has yet to be sufficiently established. As such, the high-handed action taken by respondent to enforce complainant's claim of ownership over the latter's interest in Consulting Edge i.e., causing the change of the office door lock which thereby prevented the free ingress and egress of the employees of the said company was highly improper. Verily, a person cannot take the law into his own hands, regardless of the merits of his theory. In the same light, respondent's act of advising complainant to go into hiding in order to evade arrest in the criminal case can hardly be maintained as proper legal advice since the same constitutes transgression of the ordinary processes of law. By virtue of the foregoing, respondent clearly violated his duty to his client to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice,[40] in violation of Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code as above-quoted. To note further, since such courses of action were not only improper but also erroneous, respondent equally failed to serve his client with competence and diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the Code. In the same regard, he also remained unmindful of his client's trust in him in particular, her trust that respondent would only provide her with the proper legal advice in pursuing her interests thereby violating Canon 17 of the Code. | |||||