Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legarda dean coronel just filed his appearance as client’s counsel and after that, wala
na, causing the loss of client’s house and lot==> negligence plus rule 18.03
PAO lawyer who didn’t file pleadings kasi he believed they were unnecessary
pet learned thru daughter who was asked in the courthouse kung san na kayo
nakatira
pet was at fault also for not visiting his office that much but still di pa rin
pinaalam ni resp na tapos na yung case
violated canon 18
it turns out na may connect lang pala sya sa US embassy (pineda) who
reneged on their agreement
liable coz of misrepresentation, di nya nakuha visa acc. to the contract, and
ayaw nya balik 350k remaining balance of contract
resp refused give it back to them when they demanded them 6 years later
kasi he photostated them and the pets didn’t advance him the amount
pets claimed resp negligently abandoned the appeal and failed to inform
them about it
his excuse: akala nya natransfer na yung prop in question to another party so
he didnt want to tax the CAs time anymore (dapat daw file a case against the
other party rather than to file the appeal)
his cavalier attitude towards his client makes him unworthy of the trust
imposed upon him
if he was against a legal remedy rightly available to his client, he should have
just withdrrawn himself as counsel
Ramsical resp was pets lawyer in a land case. they won in the RTC so plaintiff appealed
to the CA. they lost in the CA but the resp failed to inform the pets (nalaman
nila thru their neighbors).
when the pets saw the resp, resp asked for 7k to file the MFR to the CA, but
he didnt comply with the engagement, causing the action to prescribe,
causing the loss of their land
pet filed disbarment kasi resp causaed them great damage and prejudice
even aftet the court ordered resp to comment, he kept on asking for
extensions due to fortuitous events, family problems, and dark beings (a total
of 150 days were granted and 2 fines of 1k and 2k respectively)
Chua v. de Resp was the opponents counsel in a collection case but resp kept on seeking
castro postponements of agreed hearing dates (it took more than 5 yrs to present
one witness amp)
Excuses include simple absences, unbacked medical issues, not being ready,
etc.
Absences were sanctioned naman by the TC! (abroad for med treatment,
grad of son in U of cali)
Canon 20
Quirante v. Quirante filed a motion in the trial court for confirmation of his attorney’s
IAC fees. Mentioned an oral agreement bet him and his client
- If narecover yung 120k, 30k yung fee
- If may damages in excess of 120k, divided bet heirs, him and atty. Cruz
RTC decision meted out in favor of plaintiff (rescinded the contractor contract
with guerrero, with PHILAMGEN as bondsman) so may writ of exec but resp
appealed to IAC to quash this writ and this was elevated to the SC
IAC decision: premature yung atty fees since the SC petition may or may not
ultimately results in granting the client the damages
SC confirmed : di pa final yung main case that would grant the damages to
the client hold in abeyance muna
Tanhueco v. Resp was pets counsel and agreed on a contingent basis as the structure of
de Dumo their payment scheme
Pet filed disbarment case kasi ayaw ibalik yung amount resp collected from
debtors, refusal to retun documents (not proved) and abandoned cases daw
Resp: may 50% agreement daw pero he didn’t turn over 12k collected from
one debtor kasi pet refused to pay him (applied 12k to his fees)
SC suspended for 6 months, ordered to return the 12k, 15% na lang yung
fees
Client-atty relationship: trust! Hold in trust lang dapat yung pera. Dapat the
resp did an accounting, and returned the money to pet minus his fees
Tho may lien yung lawyer sa atty, di excuse yung di pagbalik kasi the primary
duto of the lawyer is to render justice
Also, masyado mataas yung attys fees (halos 60% na yung cinocollent nya)
So quantum meruit basis na lang daw (under court’s powers pa rn yung
remuneration contract)
Albano Pet alleged that resp failed to expedite their case after the war was over so
they hired another lawyer. After, resp intervened to collect her attys fees (1/3
daw of damages as evidenced by a letter)
They even accused resp of forging the letter (later hindi pala kasi res judicata
na)
Resps answer: meron talagang contract, plus she showed proof na she filed
more that 20 papers and pleadings and went to court and shit and even
obtained a favorable judgment
OSG found that she served client for 7 years faithfully and competently tas
the client was trying to deprive her after she had already won the case amp
Lawyers have right to be compenstated for services kasi daming time and
money to be a lawyer