Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOTHAR SCHULZ v. ATTY. MARCELO G. FLORES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	Adm. Case No. 9058 2012-11-14	ROBERT VICTOR G. SEARES v. ATTY. SANIATA LIWLIWA V. GONZALES-ALZATE BERSAMIN, J.
For administrative liability under Canon 18 to attach, the negligent act of the attorney should be gross[21] and inexcusable[22] as to lead to a result that was highly prejudicial to the client's interest.[23] Accordingly, the Court has imposed administrative sanctions on a grossly negligent attorney for unreasonable failure to file a required pleading,[24] or for unreasonable failure to file an appeal,[25] especially when the failure occurred after the attorney moved for several extensions to file the pleading[26] and offered several excuses for his nonfeasance.[27] The Court has found the attendance of inexcusable negligence when an attorney resorts to a wrong remedy,[28] or belatedly files an appeal,[29] or inordinately delays the filing of a complaint,[30] or fails to attend scheduled court hearings.[31] Gross misconduct on the part of an attorney is determined from the circumstances of the case, the nature of the act done and the motive that induced the attorney to commit the act.[32]
	AC. No. 7434 2007-08-23	SPS. AMADOR AND ROSITA TEJADA v. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAÑA VELASCO, JR., J.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that s/he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to the admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one's good standing in the profession.[8]
	AC. NO. 6051 2007-04-02	CELIA ARROYO-POSIDIO v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Rule 16.01, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires the lawyer to account for all money or property collected or received for or from his client. Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client.[15]
	AC. NO. 7057 2006-07-25	DAVID L. ALMENDAREZ v. ATTY. MINERVO T. LANGIT CARPIO, J.
Respondent should have immediately notified complainant of the trial court's approval of the motion to withdraw the deposited rentals. Upon release of the funds to him, respondent could have collected any lien which he had over them in connection with his legal services, provided he gave prompt notice to complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his client's money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorney's fees.[10] In this case, respondent did not even seek to prove the existence of any lien, or any other right that he had to retain the money.
	GR No. 154460 2005-11-22	LAURO C. DEGAMO v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORP. QUISUMBING, J.
This case is a clear example of how a counsel's inadvertence can defeat his client's cause. Basic is the rule that a client is bound by the mistake of his counsel.[14] Hence, members of the bar must take utmost care of the cases they handle for they owe fidelity to the cause of their clients.[15]
	AC. NO. 5760 2005-09-30	HEIRS OF TIBURCIO F. BALLESTEROS v. ATTY. MANILEÑO N. APIAG CARPIO, J.
Respondent should know that every case a lawyer accepts deserves the lawyer's full attention, diligence, skill and competence regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free.[57] It is a lawyer's sworn duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of his client's cause.[58] Any member of the bar worth his title cannot afford to practice the profession in a lackadaisical manner.[59]
	AC. NO. 6424 2005-03-04	CONSORCIA S. ROLLON v. ATTY. CAMILO NARAVAL PANGANIBAN, J.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client's cause.[11] Every case accepted by a lawyer deserves full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of importance.[12] The Code of Professional Responsibility clearly states:CANON 17 A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
	AC. No. 5554 2004-06-29	LUIS DE GUZMAN v. ATTY. EMMANUEL M. BASA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"Furthermore, respondent failed to show that he exercised that degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting the appeal of complainant when he himself signed (instead of complainant) the certification of non-forum shopping, resulting in the dismissal of the petition for review on certiorari. He should know, as all lawyers are presumed to know, that it should be the petitioner (not the counsel) who should sign the certification of non-forum shopping in the petition. The explanation offered to justify such non-compliance that complainant was too old, weak and ill to sign the said certification is too flimsy and, therefore, untenable. If in the motion for reconsideration that he (respondent) subsequently filed, he was able to submit a certification duly signed by complainant, there is no reason why it could not be submitted earlier at the time that the petition for review on certiorari was filed."[16] Thirdly, despite receipt from complainant the sum of P5,000.00 for the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, respondent did not file the same. Thus, he should have returned the amount to complainant who, incidentally, is now deceased.[17] In Lothar Schulz vs. Atty. Marcelo G. Flores,[18] we held that where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action or appeal an adverse judgment, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client. Respondent's unjustified withholding of complainant's money is a gross violation of the general morality and professional ethics warranting the imposition of disciplinary action.[19] Again, as correctly found by the IBP-CBD:"The undersigned likewise finds respondent's failure to file a petition for certiorari despite having collected the initial amount of P5,000.00 for attorney's fees reprehensible. There is no doubt whatsoever that in the contract dated January 10, 1993 (Annex 'A', complaint) respondent committed to file said petition for complainant. His explanation as to why he failed to do so is gratuitous. It should not even be given any probative value as it would tend to violate the parol evidence rule.