Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMINIA P. VOLUNTAD-RAMIREZ v. ATTY. ROSARIO B. BAUTISTA

This case has been cited 2 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.
In Voluntad-Ramirez v. Bautista,[12] we found Bautista negligent in handling Voluntad-Ramirez's case and ruled that he is guilty of violating Canon 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We admonished Bautista to exercise greater care and diligence in the performance of his duty to his clients and ordered him to restitute to Voluntad-Ramirez P14,000 out of the P15,000 acceptance fee. In said case, we cited Cariño v. Atty. De Los Reyes[13] where the respondent lawyer who failed to file the complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor's office restituted the P10,000 acceptance fee paid to him. The respondent lawyer in Cariño was reprimanded by the Court with a warning that he should be more careful in the performance of his duty to his clients.