Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUCILA S. BARBUCO v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO N. BELTRAN

This case has been cited 4 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. 7129 2008-07-16	FIL-GARCIA v. ATTY. FERNANDO CRESENTE C. HERNANDEZ PUNO, CJ.
Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable." Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.[31] He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance would be binding upon his client. Thus, he is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the client's cause.[32]
	AC. NO. 3569 2007-02-23	FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. MANUEL G. SAN JOSE QUISUMBING, J.
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.[10] However, respondent in this case failed to file the appropriate civil case after sending a demand letter. The failure to file a pleading is by itself inexcusable negligence on the part of respondent.[11] Moreover, this Court finds reprehensible respondent's failure to heed the request of his client for the return of the case documents. That respondent gave no reasonable explanation for that failure makes his neglect patent.
	AC. NO. 6591 2005-05-04	MARISSA L. MACARILAY v. FELIX B. SERIÑA PANGANIBAN, J.
Lawyers owe full devotion to the protection of the interests of their clients, as well as warmth and zeal in the defense of the latter's rights.[14] Once they agree to handle a case, lawyers are bound to give to it their utmost attention, skill and competence, regardless of its significance.[15] Public interest requires that they exert their best efforts and use all their learning and ability in the speedy prosecution or defense of the client's cause.[16] Those who perform that duty with diligence and candor not only safeguard the interests of the client, but also serve the ends of justice.[17] They do honor to the bar and help maintain the community's respect for the legal profession.[18]