This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that this is the first case respondent handled after he passed the bar examinations in September 2003, took his oath and signed the roll of attorneys. Respondent prays for compassionate justice as he is the only breadwinner in the family. In Tolentino v. Mangapit,[19] the Court took into consideration the fact that the omission committed by respondent counsel therein to inform her client and the latter's other lawyers of the adverse decision may be traced to her inexperience, as the case and decision was the first she handled after passing the bar, and she acted under an honest mistake in the exercise of her duty as a lawyer. Thus, in Tolentino, the Court merely admonished the respondent instead of suspending her from the practice of law for at least a month, as recommended by the Solicitor General. In this case, suspending respondent from the practice of law for three months is proper. | |||||
|
2006-02-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, it is the lawyer's duty to keep the client regularly and fully updated on the developments of the client's case.[18] The Code provides that "[a] lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information."[19] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| decide whether to seek an appellate review thereof. Keeping the client informed of the developments of the case will minimize misunderstanding and lost of trust and confidence in the attorney.[15] Indeed, the relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client's case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the | |||||