Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, AC No. 6441, October 21, 2004

    Uploaded by

    April
    Victoria Tahaw hired attorney Jeremias Vitan to file a partition case for a property in Makati City, paying him 30,000 pesos. When Tahaw checked, no case had been filed. She terminated Vitan's services and demanded a refund, which was not returned. The Court agreed with the IBP that Vitan was remiss in his responsibilities by failing to file the case and return Tahaw's funds, in violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Vitan was suspended for six months with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, AC No. 6441, October 21, 2004

    Uploaded by

    April
    73 views1 page
    Victoria Tahaw hired attorney Jeremias Vitan to file a partition case for a property in Makati City, paying him 30,000 pesos. When Tahaw checked, no case had been filed. She terminated Vitan's services and demanded a refund, which was not returned. The Court agreed with the IBP that Vitan was remiss in his responsibilities by failing to file the case and return Tahaw's funds, in violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Vitan was suspended for six months with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

    Original Description:

    Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, AC No. 6441, October 21, 2004

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Victoria Tahaw hired attorney Jeremias Vitan to file a partition case for a property in Makati City, paying him 30,000 pesos. When Tahaw checked, no case had been filed. She terminated Vitan's services and demanded a refund, which was not returned. The Court agreed with the IBP that Vitan was remiss in his responsibilities by failing to file the case and return Tahaw's funds, in violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Vitan was suspended for six months with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, AC No. 6441, October 21, 2004

    Uploaded by

    April
    Victoria Tahaw hired attorney Jeremias Vitan to file a partition case for a property in Makati City, paying him 30,000 pesos. When Tahaw checked, no case had been filed. She terminated Vitan's services and demanded a refund, which was not returned. The Court agreed with the IBP that Vitan was remiss in his responsibilities by failing to file the case and return Tahaw's funds, in violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Vitan was suspended for six months with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tahaw v. Atty. Vitan, AC No.

    6441, October 21, 2004

    Facts: Victoria Tahaw (Tahaw), the complainant, secured the services of


    respondent Atty. Jeremias Vitan (Vitan) for filing appropriate action for a
    partition of a real property located in Makati City delivering to respondent 4
    checks amounting to P30,000.00. Upon verification to check if a case has
    been filed for and in her behalf, she was issued a certification by the Clerk
    of Court in Makati that no such case was filed prompting Tahaw to write the
    respondent informing him that she was terminating his services as counsel
    and demanded the refund of the P30,000.00 to which Vitan failed to return
    prompting to file a complaint of disbarment or suspension with IBP.

    Issue/s: Whether or not the non filing of a case constitute a remiss in the
    lawyer’s responsibilities which can be penalized by disbarment or
    suspension with the IBP.

    Ruling: The Court agreed with the recommendation of the IBP that
    respondent has been remiss in his responsibilities. He is found guilty of
    violation of Canons 7 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
    his failure to file the necessary pleading for his client’s case and for the
    failure to return and immediately deliver the funds of his client advanced
    for the purpose of filing the said case, upon demand, and even after his
    commitment with the IBP to do so.

    Ratio: Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides: “A


    lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the
    trust and confidence reposed in him. The trust and confidence of clients
    require in a lawyer a high standard and appreciation of his duty to them.
    Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might
    tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
    honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.

    The respondent was suspended for six months with a stern warning that a
    repetition of the same and similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

    You might also like