Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUSAN CUIZON v. ATTY. RODOLFO MACALINO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 5834 2011-02-22	TERESITA D. SANTECO v. ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE PER CURIAM
As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. The highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer's obedience to court orders and processes.[11]
	ADM CASE. No. 6383 2009-03-31	IRENE SANTOS-TAN v. ATTY. ROMEO R. ROBISO TINGA, J.
The issuance of bouncing check cannot be countenanced nor condoned under any circumstances. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check which is drawn against insufficient funds constitutes deceitful conduct or conduct unbecoming an officer of the court. The Court has held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence.[27]
	AC. No. 7747 2008-07-14	CATHERINE v. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAÑA PER CURIAM
The fact that respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant of arrest issued by the court (where his criminal case is pending) exacerbates his offense.[27]
	AC. NO. 6051 2007-04-02	CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Needless to say, the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondent's infractions. Time and again, we have held that the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers.[22] Such conduct indicates the respondentï¿½s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.[23]
	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. 6424 2005-03-04	CONSORCIA S. ROLLON v. ATTY. CAMILO NARAVAL PANGANIBAN, J.
Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act either as advisers or as advocates of any person who may wish to become their client.[8] They may decline employment and refuse to accept representation, if they are not in a position to carry it out effectively or competently.[9] But once they agree to handle a case, attorneys are required by the Canons of Professional Responsibility to undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion.[10]
	AC. No. 6408 2004-08-31	ISIDRA BARRIENTOS v. ATTY. ELERIZZA A. LIBIRAN-METEORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer's unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence.[22] The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order.[23] It also manifests a lawyer's low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem.[24]