Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMILIA R. HERNANDEZ v. ATTY. VENANCIO B. PADILLA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 5067 2015-06-29	CORAZON M. DALUPAN v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion.[13] In Cariño v. Atty. De Los Reyes,[14] the respondent lawyer who failed to file a complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor's office, returned the P10,000 acceptance fee paid to him. Moreover, he was admonished by the Court to be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients. Meanwhile, in Voluntad-Ramirez v. Bautista,[15] we ordered the respondent lawyer to return the P14,000 acceptance fee because he did nothing to advance his client's cause during the six-month period that he was engaged as counsel.
	AC. No. 9925 2014-09-17	MARIANO R. CRISTOBAL v. ATTY. RONALDO E. RENTA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have held that once a lawyer agrees to handle a case, it is that lawyer's duty to serve the client with competence and diligence.[9]
	AC. No. 5239 2013-11-18	SPS. GEORGE A. WARRINER AND AURORA R. WARRINER v. ATTY. RENI M. DUBLIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Under the circumstances, and considering that we had already admonished respondent and had him arrested for his adamant refusal to obey our directives, we find the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six months, as recommended by the Investigating Commissioner, and as we similarly imposed in Hernandez v. Padilla[25] and Pesto v. Millo,[26] commensurate to respondent's infractions. Besides, we wish to emphasize that "suspension is not primarily intended as a punishment but a means to protect the public and the legal profession."[27]
	AC. No. 6733 2012-10-10	HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ v. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA CARPIO, J.
Once a lawyer receives the acceptance fee for his legal services, he is expected to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion.[14] As held in Santiago v. Fojas:[15]