This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his case is crucial in maintaining the client's confidence. Indeed, the relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately the client of important developments affecting the client's case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is defending the client's interests.[43] | |||||
|
2015-09-09 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We find the recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors to suspend Atty. Navarro from the practice of law for six months appropriate under the circumstances. Considering that this is his first administrative offense, such penalty, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession. For this Court will exercise its power to disbar only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the bar.[45] | |||||
|
2011-03-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Atty. Ricafort's act of obtaining P65,000.00 and P15,000.00 from the Tarogs under the respective pretexts that the amount would be deposited in court and that he would prepare and file the memorandum for the Tarogs erected a responsibility to account for and to use the amounts in accordance with the particular purposes intended. For him to deposit the amount of P65,000.00 in his personal account without the consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon demand, and for him to fail to file the memorandum and yet not return the amount of P15,000.00 upon demand constituted a serious breach of his fiduciary duties as their attorney. He reneged on his duty to render an accounting to his clients showing that he had spent the amounts for the particular purposes intended.[29] He was thereby presumed to have misappropriated the moneys for his own use to the prejudice of his clients and in violation of the clients' trust reposed in him.[30] He could not escape liability, for upon failing to use the moneys for the purposes intended, he should have immediately returned the moneys to his clients.[31] | |||||