Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO M. DIZON v. ATTY. FRANCISCO S. LAURENTE

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	ADM CASE NO. 9612 2013-03-13	JOHNNY M. PESTO v. MARCELITO M. MILLO BERSAMIN, J.
Every attorney owes fidelity to the causes and concerns of his clients. He must be ever mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him by the clients. His duty to safeguard the clients' interests commences from his engagement as such, and lasts until his effective release by the clients. In that time, he is expected to take every reasonable step and exercise ordinary care as his clients' interests may require.[19]
	AC. No. 8158 2010-02-24	ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON v. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD BRION, J.
Based on these considerations, we modify the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline's recommended penalty by increasing the period of Atty. Macalalad's suspension from the practice of law from three (3) months, to six (6) months.[23] In this regard, we follow the Court's lead in Pariñas v. Paguinto[24] where we imposed on the respondent lawyer suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law for violations of Rule 16.01 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
	ADM CASE NO. 6266 2006-11-16	ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES v. ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA QUISUMBING, J.
Certainly not to be overlooked is the duty of an attorney to inform his client of the developments of the case.[15] We note that it was only on May 5, 2003 that complainant learned that she defaulted in the case. As a lawyer mindful of the interest of his client, respondent should have informed the complainant of the court's order addressed to him, especially if he considered himself discharged in order for complainant and her new counsel to be guided accordingly.