This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-06-08 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| On the other hand, a lawyer must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. Like all professionals, he is expected to devise ways to follow the course of his cases and to keep his files updated.[38] As a member of the Bar, he is expected to exercise due diligence in the practice of his profession. Thus, every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, diligence, skill and competence. He is mandated to exert his best efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interest of his client with competence and diligence and he should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.[39] Moreover, a counsel is required to inquire, from time to time, and whenever necessary, about the status of handled cases, as well as motions filed for a client.[40] Upon the failure to do so, both counsel and client cannot be heard to complain that the latter's right to due process was violated. Indeed, the general rule is that the mistake and negligence of counsel is binding on the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by the lawyer within the scope of the express or implied authority is regarded as an act of the client.[41] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Respondent breached his duty to his client when he failed to inform complainant of the status of the criminal case. His negligence shows a glaring lack of the competence and diligence required of every lawyer.[18] His infraction is rendered all the more deplorable by the fact that complainant is a resident of Quezon City and the case was filed in Bacolod City. It was precisely for this reason that complainant engaged the services of respondent, a Bacolod-based lawyer, so that her interests in the case may be amply protected in her absence. Respondent's failure to look after his client's welfare in the case was a gross betrayal of his fiduciary duty and a breach of the trust and confident which was reposed in him. In a similar case, we held:It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject however, to the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, he owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed to him. Respondent Meneses, as counsel, had the obligation to inform his client of the status of the case and to respond within a reasonable time to his client's request for information. Respondent's failure to communicate with his client by deliberately disregarding its request for an audience or conference is an unjustifiable denial of its right to be fully informed of the developments in and the status of its case.[19] | |||||