Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMILY SENCIO v. ATTY. ROBERT CALVADORES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AC. No. 7902 2008-09-30	TORBEN B. OVERGAARD v. ATTY. GODWIN R. VALDEZ PER CURIAM
In Sencio v. Calvadores,[34] the respondent lawyer Sencio was engaged to file a case, which he failed to do. His client demanded that he return the money which was paid to him but he refused. Sencio similarly failed to answer the complaint and disregarded the orders and notices of the IBP on many occasions.[35] The respondent lawyer was ordered to return the money that he received from the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of the resolution until the return of the amount.[36]
	AC. NO. 7123 2006-11-20	MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA v. ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA CARPIO, J.
The Court also notes respondent Rivera's lack of respect for the IBP and its proceedings. After filing the Motion for Extension of Time to File an Answer[24] and despite receipt of the IBP's orders and notices, respondent Rivera did not participate in the investigation. Respondent Rivera's actuation shows a high degree of irresponsibility which stains the nobility of the legal profession.[25]
	AC. NO. 5655 2005-04-22	VALERIANA U. DALISAY v. ATTY. MELANIO MAURICIO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The facts of Sencio vs. Calvadores,[7] bear a striking similarity to the present case. Respondent lawyer Sencio did not return the money to complainant despite demand following his failure to file the case. We found him guilty of violation of the lawyer's oath, malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him for six (6) months, and ordered to return to his client the amount of P21,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of our Resolution until the return of the amount.
	AC. NO. 5835 2005-04-15	CARLOS B. REYES v. ATTY. JEREMIAS R. VITAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The facts of Sencio vs. Calvadores[7] bear a striking similarity to the present case. Respondent lawyer in Sencio did not return the money to complainant despite demand following his failure to file the case. During the proceedings before the IBP, respondent did not file his answer to the complaint nor appeared during the hearing notwithstanding his receipt of notices. We found him guilty of violation of the lawyer's oath, malpractice and gross misconduct and suspended him for six (6) months, and ordered to return to his client the amount of P12,000.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of our Resolution until the return of the amount.
	AC. No. 4219 2003-12-08	LOTHAR SCHULZ v. ATTY. MARCELO G. FLORES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The failure of an attorney to return the client's money upon demand gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice and violation of the trust reposed in him by the client.[18] It is not only a gross violation of the general morality as well as of professional ethics; it also impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.[19] In short, it is settled that the unjustified withholding of money belonging to his client, as in this case, warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.[20]
	AC. No. 4838 2003-07-29	EMILIO GRANDE v. ATTY. EVANGELINE DE SILVA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, the attitude of respondent in deliberately refusing to accept the notices served on her betrays a deplorably willful character or disposition which stains the nobility of the legal profession.[13] Her conduct not only underscores her utter lack of respect for authority; it also brings to the fore a darker and more sinister character flaw in her psyche which renders highly questionable her moral fitness to continue in the practice of law: a defiance for law and order which is at the very core of her profession.
	Adm. Case No. 5162 2003-03-20	EMILIANO COURT TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. ATTY. MICHAEL DIONEDA BELLOSILLO, J.
The facts of Sencio v. Calvadores bear a striking similarity to the present case.[15] The respondent lawyer in Sencio did not return the money to the complainant after a demand therefor was made following his failure to file the case. This Court took to task the respondent's attitude of not answering the complaint and in deliberately disregarding the orders and notices of the IBP on many occasions, holding that this attitude showed a character or disposition which stains the nobility of the legal profession as he chose not to appear at the scheduled hearings despite due notice and warnings given.[16] The IBP-appointed Commissioner had no other recourse but to receive the evidence of the complainant ex-parte.[17]