Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AZUCENA SEGOVIA-RIBAYA v. ATTY. BARTOLOME C. LAWSIN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the proper penalty for respondent, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[30] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz,[31] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. Finally, in Agot v. Rivera,[32] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his: (a) failure to handle the legal matter entrusted to him and to return the legal fees in connection thereto; and (b) misrepresentation that he was an immigration lawyer, when in truth, he was not. In this case, not only did respondent fail to file a petition for adoption on behalf of complainants and to return the money she received as legal fees, she likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting that she had already filed such petition when nothing was actually filed, resulting in undue prejudice to complainants. On top of these, respondent showed impertinence not only to the IBP Investigating Commissioner, but to the Court as well, when she ignored directives to comment on the complainants' petition against her and to participate in the investigation of the case. Under these circumstances, the Court imposes on respondent the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years, as recommended by the IBP.
	AC. No. 8826 2015-03-25	SHIRLEY OLAYTA-CAMBA v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[19] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter.[20] Similarly, in Meneses v. Macalino,[21] the same penalty was imposed on a lawyer who failed to render any legal service to his client as well as to return the money he received for such purpose.[22] These pronouncements notwithstanding, there have been instances where the Court tempered the penalty imposed upon a lawyer due to humanitarian and equitable considerations.[23] In view of the foregoing, and taking into consideration respondent's advanced age, medical condition, and the fact that this is his first offense, the Court finds it appropriate to sustain the recommended penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) month.
	AC. No. 10672 2015-03-18	EDUARDO A. MAGLENTE v. ATTY. DELFIN R. AGCAOILI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their clients' affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court meted out the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[21] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter.[22] Similarly, in Meneses v. Macalino,[23] the same penalty was imposed on a lawyer who failed to render any legal service to his client as well as to return the money he received for such purpose.[24] In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate that respondent be meted with the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
	AC. No. 8000 2014-08-05	CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Anent the proper penalty for respondent's acts, jurisprudence provides that in similar cases where lawyers neglected their client's affairs and, at the same time, failed to return the latter's money and/or property despite demand, the Court imposed upon them the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. In Segovia-Ribaya v. Lawsin,[21] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of one (1) year for his failure to perform his undertaking under his retainership agreement with his client and to return the money given to him by the latter. Also, in Jinon v. Jiz,[22] the Court suspended the lawyer for a period of two (2) years for his failure to return the amount his client gave him for his legal services which he never performed. In this case, not only did respondent fail to facilitate the issuance of complainant's US visa and return her money, he likewise committed deceitful acts in misrepresenting himself as an immigration lawyer, resulting in undue prejudice to his client. Under these circumstances, a graver penalty should be imposed upon him. In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to increase the period of suspension from the practice of law of respondent from six (6) months, as recommended by the IBP, to two (2) years.