Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GLORIA P. JINON v. ATTY. LEONARDO E. JIZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the proper penalty for respondent, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[30] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz,[31] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. Finally, in Agot v. Rivera,[32] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his: (a) failure to handle the legal matter entrusted to him and to return the legal fees in connection thereto; and (b) misrepresentation that he was an immigration lawyer, when in truth, he was not. In this case, not only did respondent fail to file a petition for adoption on behalf of complainants and to return the money she received as legal fees, she likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting that she had already filed such petition when nothing was actually filed, resulting in undue prejudice to complainants. On top of these, respondent showed impertinence not only to the IBP Investigating Commissioner, but to the Court as well, when she ignored directives to comment on the complainants' petition against her and to participate in the investigation of the case. Under these circumstances, the Court imposes on respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, as recommended by the IBP.
	AC. No. 10662 2015-07-07	JUN B. LUNA v. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA LEONEN, J.
Lawyers should maintain, at all times, "a high standard of legal proficiency, morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession, the courts and their clients, in accordance with the values and norms embodied in the Code [of Professional Responsibility]."[54]
	AC. No. 10662 2015-07-07	JUN B. LUNA v. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA LEONEN, J.
In Jinon v. Jiz,[82] respondent received P45,000.00 from his client for transfer of title expenses.[83] His client later learned that respondent had been collecting the rentals from the property amounting to P12,000.00, yet respondent only turned over P7,000.00.[84] Complainant terminated respondent's legal services and demanded the return of the amounts.[85] Respondent countered that his legal services covered negotiation and sale of the property for a fee of P75,000.00.[86] This court found Atty. Jiz guilty of violating Rules 16.01, 16.03, and 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him from the practice of law for two (2) years, and ordered him to pay complainant the amount of P45,000.00 with 6% legal interest per annum from date of demand until finality of Decision, then 12% until fully paid.[87]
	AC. No. 10662 2015-07-07	JUN B. LUNA v. ATTY. DWIGHT M. GALARRITA LEONEN, J.
Administrative proceedings require only substantial evidence.[89] This court accepts and adopts the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, but with modification increasing the period of suspension from the practice of law to two (2) years considering that respondent Atty. Galarrita not only compromised litigation without complainant Luna's consent, but also refused to turn over the settlement proceeds to date.
	GR No. 208062 2015-04-07	SOCIAL WEATHER STATIONS v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
COMELEC counters that Section 13 of the Fair Election Act's provision that rules shall take effect "on the seventh day after their publication" applies only to Resolution No. 9615, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Fair Election Act, and not to Resolution No. 9674, which "merely enforces Section 26[144] of Resolution No. 9615."[145]
	GR No. 205728 2015-01-21	DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC LEONEN, J.
On February 22, 2013, respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove Campaign Materials[8] addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra. The election officer ordered the tarpaulin's removal within three (3) days from receipt for being oversized. COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement of two feet (2') by three feet (3').[9]
	GR No. 205357 2014-09-02	GMA NETWORK v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
The authority of the COMELEC to impose airtime limits directly flows from the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006 [2001])[32] one hundred (120) minutes of television advertisement and one-hundred eighty (180) minutes for radio advertisement. For the 2004 elections, the respondent COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 6520[33] implementing the airtime limits by applying said limitation on a per station basis.[34] Such manner of determining airtime limits was likewise adopted for the 2007 elections, through Resolution No. 7767.[35] In the 2010 elections, under Resolution No. 8758,[36] the same was again adopted. But for the 2013 elections, the COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, chose to aggregate the total broadcast time among the different broadcast media, thus: Section 9. Requirements and/or Limitations on the Use of Election Propaganda through Mass Media. All parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space for their election propaganda during the campaign period subject to the following requirements and/or limitations:
	AC. No. 8000 2014-08-05	CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the proper penalty for respondent's acts, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[21] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz,[22] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. In this case, not only did respondent fail to facilitate the issuance of complainant's US visa and return her money, he likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting himself as an immigration lawyer, resulting in undue prejudice to his client. Under these circumstances, a graver penalty should be imposed upon him. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to increase the period of suspension from the practice of law of respondent from six (6) months, as recommended by the IBP, to two (2) years.
	AC. No. 9532 2013-10-08	MARIA CRISTINA ZABALJAUREGUI PITCHER v. ATTY. RUSTICO B. GAGATE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Several cases show that lawyers who have been held liable for gross negligence for infractions similar to those committed of respondent were suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years. In Jinon v. Jiz,[43] a lawyer who neglected his client's case, misappropriated the client's funds and disobeyed the IBP's directives to submit his pleadings and attend the hearings was suspended from the practice of law for two years. In Small v. Banares,[44] the Court meted a similar penalty against a lawyer who failed to render any legal service even after receiving money from the complainant; to return the money and documents he received despite demand; to update his client on the status of her case and respond to her requests for information; and to file an answer and attend the mandatory conference before the IBP. Also, in Villanueva v. Gonzales,[45] a lawyer who neglected complainant's cause; refused to immediately account for his client's money and to return the documents received; failed to update his client on the status of her case and to respond to her requests for information; and failed to submit his answer and to attend the mandatory conference before the IBP was suspended from the practice of law for two years. However, the Court observes that, in the present case, complainant was subjected to a graver injury as she was prosecuted for the crime of grave coercion largely due to the improper and erroneous advice of respondent. Were it not for respondent's imprudent counseling, not to mention his act of abandoning his client during the proceedings, complainant would not have unduly suffered the harbors of a criminal prosecution. Thus, considering the superior degree of the prejudice caused to complainant, the Court finds it apt to impose against respondent a higher penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years as recommended by the OBC.