This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Respondent cannot be faulted for advising complainants to file an action against Fevidal to recover their properties, instead of agreeing to a settlement of P10,000,000 a measly amount compared to that in the original agreement, under which Fevidal undertook to pay complainants the amount of P35,000,000. Lawyers have a sworn duty and responsibility to protect the interest of any prospective client and pursue the ends of justice.[31] Any lawyer worth his salt would advise complainants against the abuses of Fevidal under the circumstances, and we cannot countenance an administrative complaint against a lawyer only because he performed a duty imposed on him by his oath. | |||||
|
2011-11-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In some cases, the Court stripped lawyers of the privilege to practice their profession for breach of trust and confidence pertaining to their clients' moneys and properties. In Manzano v. Soriano,[53] therein respondent, found guilty of grave misconduct (misappropriating the funds belonging to his client) and malpractice, represented therein complainant in a collection suit, but failed to turn over the amount of P50,000.00 as stipulated in their agreement and, to conceal the misdeed, executed a simulated deed of sale, with himself as the vendor and, at the same time, the notary public. In Lemoine v. Balon, Jr.,[54] therein respondent, found guilty of malpractice, deceit, and gross misconduct, received the check corresponding to his client's insurance claim, falsified the check and made it payable to himself, encashed the same, and appropriated the proceeds. | |||||