This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Verily, the relationship between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary and prescribes on a lawyer a great fidelity and good faith.[23] The highly fiduciary nature of this relationship imposes upon the lawyer the duty to account for the money or property collected or received for or from his client.[24] Thus, a lawyer's failure to return upon demand the funds held by him on behalf of his client - as in this case - gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality, as well as of professional ethics.[25] | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Rule 1.0, Canon 1 of the CPR, provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." It is well-established that a lawyer's conduct is "not confined to the performance of his professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court."[27] | |||||
|
2014-06-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| When a lawyer receives money from the client for a particular purpose, the lawyer is bound to render an accounting to the client showing that the money was spent for that particular purpose. And if he does not use the money for the intended purpose, the lawyer must immediately return the money to his client.[31] In this case, the purpose for which Atty. De Taza demanded money is baseless and non-existent. Thus, her demand should not have even been made in the first place. | |||||