This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, in Reyes v. Vitan,[12] we reiterated that the act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling the complainant's case and, subsequently, in failing to render the services, is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We made the same conclusion in Canoy v. Ortiz[13] where we emphatically stated that the lawyer's failure to file the position paper was per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Based on respondent's own admissions, he did not properly withdraw as counsel for complainant. The settled rule is that the attorney-client relation continues until the client gives a notice of discharge, or manifests to the court or tribunal where the case is pending that counsel is being discharged, with a copy served upon the adverse party.[19] Thus, the only way to be relieved as counsel is to have either the written conformity of his client or an order from the court relieving him of the duties of counsel, in accordance with Rule 138, Section 26[20] of the Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A case in point is Canoy v. Ortiz[51] where the Court ruled that the lawyer's failure to file the position paper is per se a violation of Rule 18.03 of the Code. There the Court ruled that the lawyer could not shift the blame to his client for failing to follow up his case because it was the lawyer's duty to inform his client of the status of cases. The Court further ruled that the dereliction of duty to file the position paper, compounded by the failure for nearly two years to inform the client of the dismissal of the case, evidently shows the lawyer's negligence. | |||||