This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Neither can respondent's asseveration that his engagement by Emilio was more of a mediator than a litigator and for the purpose of forging a settlement among the family members render the rule inoperative. In fact, even on that assertion, his conduct is likewise improper since Rule 15.04,[32] Canon 15 of the Code similarly requires the lawyer to obtain the written consent of all concerned before he may act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes. Irrefragably, respondent failed in this respect as the records show that respondent was remiss in his duty to make a full disclosure of his impending engagement as Emilio's counsel to all the Heirs of Antonio particularly, Karen and equally secure their express written consent before consummating the same. Besides, it must be pointed out that a lawyer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot represent any of the parties to it.[33] Accordingly, for respondent's violation of the aforestated rules, disciplinary sanction is warranted. | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at any time with or without cause.[18] The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted.[19] Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.[20] He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause.[21] A lawyer's right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the client's written consent or from a good cause.[22] | |||||