Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PABLITO SANTOS v. ATTY. ALVARO BERNABE LAZARO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AC. No. 9317 2014-06-04	ADELIA V. QUIACHON v. ATTY. JOSEPH ADOR A. RAMOS SERENO, C.J.
All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's cause.[22] Regardless of their personal views, they must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.[23] Whenever lawyers take on their clients' cause/s, they covenant that they will exercise due diligence in protecting the client's rights; their failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their client/s and make them answerable to the client, the courts and society.[24]
	AC. NO. 3569 2007-02-23	FIDELA VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ v. ATTY. MANUEL G. SAN JOSE QUISUMBING, J.
In Santos v. Lazaro,[8] we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is a basic postulate in legal ethics. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes the lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society. Until the lawyer's withdrawal is properly done, the lawyer is expected to do his or her best for the interest of the client.[9]
	AC. NO. 5835 2005-04-15	CARLOS B. REYES v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Santos vs. Lazaro,[5] we held that Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, above-quoted, is a basic postulate in legal ethics. Indeed, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.[6]
	AC. No. 5817 2004-05-26	EMMA V. DE JUAN v. ATTY. OSCAR R. BARIA III QUISUMBING, J.
Again, the Court held in the case of Santos v. Lazaro,[16] that "Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility[17] explicitly provides that negligence of lawyers in connection with legal matters entrusted to them for handling shall render them liable.
	Adm. Case No. 5162 2003-03-20	EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA BELLOSILLO, J.
In Santos v. Lazaro this Court recognized Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a basic postulate in legal ethics stating that when a lawyer takes a client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.[13] The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but also to the legal profession, the courts and society.[14]