Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGINIA VILLAFLORES v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 10138 2015-06-16	ROBERTO P. NONATO v. ATTY. EUTIQUIO M. FUDOLIN PER CURIAM
A lawyer is bound to protect his client's interests to the best of his ability and with utmost diligence.[6] He should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent, and efficient manner; and provide the quality of service at least equal to that which he, himself, would expect from a competent lawyer in a similar situation. By consenting to be his client's counsel, a lawyer impliedly represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill demanded by his profession, and his client may reasonably expect him to perform his obligations diligently.[7] The failure to meet these standards warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.
	AC. No. 8235 2015-01-27	JOSELITO F. TEJANO v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA CARPIO, J.
When a lawyer agrees to take up a client's cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Once a lawyer's services are engaged, "he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him."[25] A lawyer's acceptance to take up a case "impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory."[26]
	AC. No. 6910 2012-07-11	ISAAC C. BASILIO v. ATTY. VIRGIL R. CASTRO SERENO, J.
In Villaflores v. Limos,[29] this Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the failure of counsel to file the requisite appellant's brief amounted to inexcusable negligence, to wit: The failure of respondent to file the appellant's brief for complainant within the reglementary period constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Saquilabon, this Court held:
	GR No. 188630 2011-02-23	FILOMENA L. VILLANUEVA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
It need not be overemphasized that the trust and confidence necessarily reposed by clients in their counsel requires from the latter a high standard and appreciation of his duty to his clients, his profession, the courts and the public. Every lawyer should, therefore, serve his client in a meticulous, careful and competent manner. He is bound to protect the client's interests and to do all steps necessary therefor as his client reasonably expects him to discharge his obligations diligently.[32]
	AC. No. 8158 2010-02-24	ATTY. ELMER C. SOLIDON v. ATTY. RAMIL E. MACALALAD BRION, J.
The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence in handling a case. In Canoy, we accordingly declared that the lawyer cannot shift the blame to his client for failing to follow up on his case because it was the lawyer's duty to inform his client of the status of the case.[14] Our rulings in Macarilay v. Seriña,[15] in Heirs of Ballesteros v. Apiag,[16] andin Villaflores v. Limos[17]were of the same tenor.In Villaflores, we opined that even if the client has been equally at fault for the lack of communication, the main responsibility remains with the lawyer to inquire and know the best means to acquire the required information. We held that as between the client and his lawyer, the latter has more control in handling the case.
	AC. No. 8252 2009-07-21	NATIVIDAD UY v. ATTY. BRAULIO RG TANSINSIN NACHURA, J.
Verily, respondent's failure to file the required pleadings and to inform his client about the developments in her case fall below the standard exacted upon lawyers on dedication and commitment to their client's cause.[15]
	GR No. 143786 2008-10-17	SPS. LOURDES V. RUTAQUIO AND LEONARDO LIWANAG v. LOPEZ NACHURA, J.
We disagree. What the Valdez-Sales & Associates law office committed was not only ordinary negligence. The counsel's failure to file the appellant's brief within the reglementary period constitutes gross negligence in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[17]