exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence While a lawyer has

Exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 104 pages.

exerted efforts to rebut the presented prosecution evidence. While a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him, he must present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law to support his client’s cause. (Mattus v : Villaseca, A.C. No. 7922, 2013) Q: What is the EFFECT OF DECEIT OR MISREPRESENTATION? A: A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for deceit or misrepresentation to the prejudice of or as a means to defraud his client. Implicit in these fraudulent acts are bad faith on the part of the lawyer and material damage to the client, which are the requisites that should concur to justify the suspension or disbarment of the lawyer on the ground deceit or misrepresentation. CANON 18: LAWYER’S DUTY OF ENTIRE DEVOTION TO CLIENT’S CAUSE - CHARACTERIZED BY COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE SUMMARY OF RULES UNDER CANON 18 1) To render service only when qualified to do so (Rule 18.01, CPR)\ 2) Not to handle a case without adequate preparation (Rule 18.02, CPR)] and, 3) Not to neglect matters entrusted to him (Rule 18.03, CPR). Q: What is the duty to keep the client fully informed? A: A lawyer must advise his client promptly whenever he has any information to give which is important for the client to receive. (Baker v. Humphrey, 1879) However, it is also the client’s duty to make proper inquiries from his counsel concerning his case. (Florendo v. Florendo, G.R. No. L-24982, 1969) Q: May a lawyer, who fails to file his client’s petition and to respond to his client’s messages for a period of 6 months, be held liable for violating the CPR? A: YES. A lawyer so engaged to represent a client bears the responsibility of protecting the latter’s interest with utmost diligence. The circumstance that the client was also at fault does not exonerate a lawyer from liability for his negligence in handling a case. All court rulings drive home the fiduciary nature of a lawyer’s duty to his client once an engagement for legal services is accepted. (Atty. Solidon vs. Atty Macalalad, A.C. No. 8158, 2010) Q: Mrs. X inherited some shares of ABC Co. Mrs. X engaged the services of Atty. Z, and together, went to ABC Co to settle these affairs. However, things turned sour and ABC Co then asked them to leave, locked the office Page 29 of 103
Image of page 29
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2019 ETHICS and refused to give them a duplicate key. However, Atty. Z, without the consent of Ms. X, caused the change in the lock of the ABC Co’s office door, which prevented the employees thereof from entering and carrying on the operations of the company. Thus, ABC Co filed a complaint for grave coercion against Atty. Z and Mrs. X. While the grave coercion case was pending, Atty. Z then abandoned Mrs. X and stopped communicating with the latter. Can Atty. Z be held liable? A: YESs Atty. Z can be held liable for failing to exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s cause. He (1) failed to represent her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of law; and, (2) abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending. Atty. Z
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture