Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS B. REYES v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 9896 2014-03-19	MA. ELENA CARLOS NEBREJA v. ATTY. BENJAMIN REONAL MENDOZA, J.
This Court has consistently held, in construing this Rule, that the mere failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to the client is considered per se a violation.[8] Thus, a lawyer was held to be negligent when he failed to do anything to protect his client's interest after receiving his acceptance fee.[9] In another case,[10] this Court has penalized a lawyer for failing to inform the client of the status of the case, among other matters. In another instance, for failure to take the appropriate actions in connection with his client's case, the lawyer was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and was required to render accounting of all the sums he received from his client.[11]
	AC. No. 6664 2013-07-16	FERDINAND A. SAMSON v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA BERSAMIN, J.
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that: "A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts." Atty. Era thus owed to Samson and his group entire devotion to their genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of their rights.[25] He was expected to exert his best efforts and ability to preserve the clients' cause, for the unwavering loyalty displayed to his clients likewise served the ends of justice.[26]
	AC. No. 6121 2009-07-31	TRINIDAD H. CAMARA v. ATTY. OSCAR AMANDY REYES NACHURA, J.
When respondent accepted the amount of P50,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latter's case, and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected that he would serve his client, herein complainant, with competence, and attend to her cause with fidelity, care and devotion.[12]
	AC. No. 7657 2008-02-12	VIVIAN VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CORNELIUS M. GONZALES CARPIO, J.
Clearly, respondent did not serve complainant with fidelity, competence, or diligence. He totally neglected complainant's cause. An attorney-client relationship between respondent and complainant was established when respondent accepted the acceptance fee. Since then, he should have exercised due diligence in furthering his client's cause and given it his full attention.[21] Respondent did not render any service.