Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIO S. AMAYA v. ATTY. DELANO A. TECSON

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 6788 2007-08-23	DIANA RAMOS v. ATTY. JOSE R. IMBANG PER CURIAM
In this instance, respondent received P5,000 from the complainant and issued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with the PAO. Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship.[26] Respondent's admission that he accepted money from the complainant and the receipt confirmed the presence of an attorney-client relationship between him and the complainant. Moreover, the receipt showed that he accepted the complainant's case while he was still a government lawyer. Respondent clearly violated the prohibition on private practice of profession.
	AC. NO. 3569 2007-02-23	FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. MANUEL G. SAN JOSE QUISUMBING, J.
The Code of Professional Responsibility in Rule 18.03 enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.[6] A lawyer engaged to represent a client in a case bears the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with utmost diligence. It is the duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence and he should exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his client. It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to handle a legal matter; he is also required to prepare adequately and give the appropriate attention to his legal work.[7]
	AC. NO. 4676 2006-05-04	SPS. ANTONIO AND NORMA SORIANO v. ATTY. REYNALDO P. REYES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again we have stated that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar. Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe - such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine - would accomplish the end desired.[30]
	ADM CASE NO. 6542 2005-09-30	MARIA CIELO B. SUZUKI v. ATTY. ERWIN L. TIAMSON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Complainant prays for the disbarment of respondent. However, it must be stressed that disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction, and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution for only the most imperative reasons and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.[26] Accordingly, disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as a reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired.[27] Considering that there is no evidence to prove that respondent misappropriated the sum of P500,000.00 he received from complainant as partial payment for the subject property, as well as the P80,000.00 complainant gave him as her share in the expenses for the registration of the subject deed of sale, we find it fit to reprimand respondent for his acts of unfairly dealing with complainant.