Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO CONLU v. ATTY. IRENEO AREDONIA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Undoubtedly, "[t]he Court's patience has been tested to the limit by what in hindsight amounts to a lawyer's impudence and disrespectful1 bent. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect, courtesy, and such other becoming conduct essential in the promotion of orderly, impartial, and speedy justice."[29] What respondent has done was the exact opposite, and hence, she must be disciplined accordingly.
	AC. No. 5044 2013-12-02	FELIPE C. DAGALA v. ATTY. JOSE C. QUESADA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Primarily, Atty, Quesada failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainant's case by his failure to justify his absence on the two (2) mandatory conference hearings in NLRC Case No. RAB-I-11-1123-94 despite due notice, which thus resulted in its dismissal. It bears stressing that a retained counsel is expected to serve the client with competence and diligence and not to sit idly by and leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty. To this end, he is oblige to attend scheduled hearings or conferences, prepare and file the required pleadings, prosecute the handled cases with reasonable dispatch, and urge their termination without waiting for the client or the court to prod him or her to do so.[46] Atty. Quesada's failure to attend the scheduled conference hearings, despite due notice and without any proper justification, exhibits his inexcusable lack of care and diligence in managing his client's cause in violation of Canon 17 and Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the Code.
	Adm. Case No. 9058 2012-11-14	ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES v. ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE BERSAMIN, J.
The severity of disbarment or suspension proceedings as the penalty for an attorney's misconduct has always moved the Court to treat the complaint with utmost caution and deliberate circumspection. We have done so because we must wield the power to disbar or suspend on the preservative rather than on the vindictive principle,[17] conformably with our thinking that disbarment or suspension will be condign and appropriate only when there is a clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof of misconduct seriously affecting the professional standing and ethics of respondent attorney as an officer of the Court and as a member of the Bar.[18]