Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ v. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AC. No. 7618 2016-02-02	SPS. JONATHAN v. ATTY. SINAMAR E. LIMOS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under the foregoing provisions, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.[21] Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable,[22] as in this case.
	AC. No. 8235 2015-01-27	JOSELITO F. TEJANO v. ATTY. BENJAMIN F. BATERINA CARPIO, J.
When a lawyer agrees to take up a client's cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's rights. Once a lawyer's services are engaged, "he is duty bound to serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client's cause with diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him."[25] A lawyer's acceptance to take up a case "impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final and executory."[26]
	AC. No. 8000 2014-08-05	CHAMELYN A. AGOT v. ATTY. LUIS P. RIVERA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR, once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty-bound to serve the latter with competence, and to attend to such client's cause with diligence, care, and devotion whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.[16] Therefore, a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him by his client constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable,[17] as in this case.